BALANCE ANALYSIS - Dwarfs OP

  • Thinking about next server, I decided to check the rumour that dwarfs are stronger than elves. What I found is so broken, that I think it should be shared.


    TLDR (Summary) if you are lazy to read:

    19.07.2020 UPD: there have been changes introduced to the game since this post was published. I believe that both races are now balanced

    Dwarfs have 2% better units by power (effect of inherent higher initiative) [Need to confirm, but effect seems to be reduced by units changes in S3 patch]

    Dwarfs have preferable matching mechanics early-mid game, and equal in endgame. [does not seem to be the case any more with S3 patch]

    Dwarfs have PVP advantage from 9% (early game) to 3.5% (endgame) due to masteries. [found error in calculations. difference is 1% only in dwarfs favour]

    Dwarfs have 11% better economy bonus due to masteries (construction time) [balanced by updates to patch S3]


    Here are some conditions I set, to make the comparison manageable:

    * PVP strength is determined by slot size multiplied by army strength plus any modifiers, that is why I analysed 3 aspects: 1- Warlords (Speed, morale, slot size); 2 – units; 3 - mastery points.

    * Anti-goblin troops are ignored since they don’t affect pvp.

    * production cost and time are ignored (it is important to balance them. But they do not impact whether someone wins or loses a fight)

    * I used new values for units proposed here. (what we played with on this server was more imbalanced) 💬 Unit and Race balancing - Prepare for DevTalk


    1. Warlords analysis (WLs).

    SPEED: equal.

    Dwarfs have more spread out speeds, but on average they are equal – 36.

    Attached graph to see how it changes from early to later WLs.


    MORALE: equal.

    On average it is 48.


    SLOT size and base POWER: equal.

    Slot size has to be adjusted for units strength, because 500 infantry is not the same as 500 cavalry. To calculate power, I multiplied slot size by average unit strength for each race. WL strength is higher for high-level WLs, but comparing Dwarfs and Elves, they are equal. 122.8k per WL average.


    Notes:

    I have much more data, but it is not useful to share all. E.g. I analysed slots preference over time, units’ preference over time, but it is insignificant in this topic so I am excluding them for the sake of clarity.

    == CONTINUE ==

  • 2. Units analysis

    This was most difficult part of analysis. It has 3 components: base power, matching scenarios and initiative.


    BASE POWER: equal

    This aspect ignores any modifies units have (50% anti-infantry strength and such). Conclusion is the same as in section 1.3, when average unit power is applied to all WLs. They are equal.


    MATCHING SCENARIOS: equal on average, DW more practical

    How I did it. Each WL was equipped with best matching units with their modifier, and if not available – average unit without modifier. Repeat for every unit type for both races, so in total there were 220 scenarios. Surprising result – they are equal on average. With some preferences between the races.

    (note: early game results a somewhat skewed, I did not account for high tier units’ availability. But effect is low because high tier units can be obtained from supplies and they normally have anti-artillery modifier, which on a graph becomes significant in late game, which all units are available).


    Summary: Numbers are equal, but Elves are better at destroying artillery, dwarfs at destroying infantry. Considering Artillery comes into play much later and Infantry is present all the time, Dwarfs have clear advantage here.



    INITIATIVE: dwarf dominance

    How much valuable initiative is? In terms of doing more damage during the battle – not much, approximately 0.1% per round, but it does make more difference at the end (who does the last hit). With equal units, each hit is causing approximately 1.5%-2% damage. So let’s say total benefit of higher initiative is 2%.


    Dwarfs have generally higher average initiative (15.6 vs 14.1). And comparing different scenarios Dwarfs have higher initiative 2 times more often than elves (excluded elven vs elven modifier and dwarf vs dwarf). But if you look closer at match ups, infantry losses pretty much all the time; cavalry has benefit over infantry units with unfavourable modifier, meaning initiative is unnecessary; artillery is better.


    So elves are at disadvantage most of the game, which gets a little better towards end of the game, but still remains imbalanced.


    === CONTINUE===

  • 3. Mastery points

    Easiest way to compare is to looks at mastery points in blocks.


    COMBAT:

    Both Dwarfs and Elves can spend 6 points on +2% per point to infantry/cavalry/artillery (green on screen), so let’s ignore them. Check screenshot.


    Slot size:

    Dwarfs can spend 75 points total on 1,2,3 slot size increase and each unit type slot size. With total bonus of 105%.

    Elves can spend 75 points too (cap is different, but total is the same). Total bonus is only 88.6%


    Slot power:

    Dwarfs – 60 points spent and 40% bonus damage achieved.

    Elves – 60 points spent and 46.6% bonus achieved. (preference on slot 3).

    Slot power and size work as multipliers, and when multiplied, dwarfs would get 292.6% increase while elves 282.4%.


    So, when maxed (141 points spent), Dwarfs are 3.5% stronger by PVP masteries.


    Worst part of it though, is in early and mid-game. Dwarfs have masteries giving +5% per point and with only 70 points spent (30 on size and 40 on power of slots 1,2) can achieve 96.47% total power increase, while Elves (40 on size and 30 on power of slots 1,2) only 80.49% total power increase. Which means that in mid game dwarfs are 8.9% stronger than elves by pvp masteries (early game difference is even greater).


    Additionally, Dwarfs can achieve higher bonus value per unit type, creating single-type units overpowered WLs.


    ECONOMY:

    Resource bonuses and Dungeons are equal. But construction time is very different.

    Dwarfs can spend 13 points to achieve 39% construction time reduction.

    Elves can spend 5 points to achieve 25% construction time reduction.

    Considering that construction time is primary game bottleneck for economy growth, and it is main use of premium currency (gems used to speed up construction), Dwarfs have 11% advantage over Elves in economy.

    === END===

  • Wow, reading your analysis makes me wonder if we played the same game.



    I was thinking about how to argue my case - but having talked with you in the past I don't think that presenting my side would be beneficial here. Maybe the better way to convince you is to pick a particular brutal example and let you figure it out for yourself:

    MATCHING SCENARIOS: equal on average, DW more practical

    How I did it. Each WL was equipped with best matching units with theirmodifier, and if not available – average unit without modifier. Repeat forevery unit type for both races, so in total there were 220 scenarios. Surprisingresult – they are equal on average. With some preferences between the races.

    (note: early game results a somewhat skewed, I did not account for high tier units’availability. But effect is low because high tier units can be obtained fromsupplies and they normally have anti-artillery modifier, which on a graphbecomes significant in late game, which all units are available).


    Summary: Numbers are equal, but Elves are better at destroying artillery,dwarfs at destroying infantry. Considering Artillery comes into play much laterand Infantry is present all the time, Dwarfs have clear advantage here.


    Read that again and tell me if you still think that your chosen methodology is reasonable and if you can really draw these conclusions from that data.



    I hope I don't sound too ... ehm.. what is the word... flabbergasted?

  • I was thinking about how to argue my case - but having talked with you in the past I don't think that presenting my side would be beneficial here. Maybe the better way to convince you is to pick a particular brutal example and let you figure it out for yourself

    You should not take 1 sample to prove that something is true for the entire population.


    I admit that this part of the analysis is the most difficult and I am happy to consider alternative views or methodologies. Feel free to reach out in Discord: Tackeshy#4734

    I don't mind to be proven wrong and will not deny it. Just remember that matching scenarios are only 1 aspect of the balance and there are plenty other issues.

    PS: I don't remember talking to you in game, unless you play with different nickname.

  • There some other points to consider as well so its generally spoken a really hard topic. In our realm we came to the conclusion that dwarfs are stronger but after playing this round many of us think the difference is that that big or we think elves are even.


    I am not sure if i would pick dwarfs again if i had to reconsider the round.

  • There some other points to consider as well so its generally spoken a really hard topic. In our realm we came to the conclusion that dwarfs are stronger but after playing this round many of us think the difference is that that big or we think elves are even.


    I am not sure if i would pick dwarfs again if i had to reconsider the round.

    I appreciate your opinion and opinion of other people commenting here. But let me ask, what is your conclusion based on? Did you or your team do any analysis or at least counted battle logs?
    If it is just a feeling, I would suggest to be very causious with it. Human nature is very prone to different biases and doesn't do well with statistics intuitively. I have to admit that I had a lot of different assumptions before this analysis (I thought that initiative impact is about 5-7%, that dwarven units have higher base strength and a few others; they proved to be wrong)

    Bottom line: please DO challenge my calculations. But support them with data.

  • please DO challenge my calculations. But support them with data.


    You may have calculated something, but it's utterly useless. If you base your opinion on this data, that is as I pointed out completely meaningless, your opinion will be equally unfounded.



    I'll give you an example:


    You added all the movement-speeds of all the WLs and from that number you drew the conclusion that dwarves and elves are equal.

    Why is that flawed? Because you had 2 sensible options:

    Either divide WLs by early/mid/late-game (still relatively low significance)

    or

    compare the 10 WLs that are actually being used and compare their speeds.


    The way you did it, it's meaningless. Why has the speed of Acidious the same impact as the speed of aurora/vortex? Why did you decide Arilla's speed has equal meaning to the elves as Alphacas?


    And as I have hinted to before, that's just the beginning of your fallacies. So please don't presume you have a more informed opinion because you have "data".

  • And as I have hinted to before, that's just the beginning of your fallacies. So please don't presume you have a more informed opinion because you have "data".

    Since you touched it, Speed is the least important aspect. It has no impact on who wins the engagement. It only affects usability, and not by much. Looking at 11 last WLs (upper half), Dwarfs have 2 slowest and 2 fastest. This is both a hinderance and advantage depending on tactical situation. If I take average of high lvl WLs only as you suggest, Dwarfs: 33.5 and Elves: 32.9 speed...


    If you want to continue, lLet's discuss in discord and publish here the summary to avoid long chatter here. I posted my ID above. Or if you don't want that, make a list all my mistakes in a succinct way, I'll try to adress.

    But before doing it, please, honestly answer the question (to yourself, no need to answer here): do you argue for the sake of argumet, or you want to actually figure out if there are issues with the balance ? If the latter, don't just throw stones in me; do complete analysis of 1 aspect and then lets discuss.

  • Since you touched it, Speed is the least important aspect. It has no impact on who wins the engagement. It only affects usability, and not by much. Looking at 11 last WLs (upper half), Dwarfs have 2 slowest and 2 fastest. This is both a hinderance and advantage depending on tactical situation. If I take average of high lvl WLs only as you suggest, Dwarfs: 33.5 and Elves: 32.9 speed...


    If you want to continue, lLet's discuss in discord and publish here the summary to avoid long chatter here. I posted my ID above. Or if you don't want that, make a list all my mistakes in a succinct way, I'll try to adress.

    But before doing it, please, honestly answer the question (to yourself, no need to answer here): do you argue for the sake of argumet, or you want to actually figure out if there are issues with the balance ? If the latter, don't just throw stones in me; do complete analysis of 1 aspect and then lets discuss.

    speed allows you to manipulate the engagements to your favor, due to late joining of warlords you can position your own warlords to counter the enemy. However, warlord meta is a totally different topic, just because the elf warlords which currently are used have the overall speed advantage over the currently used dwarf heros, doesnt mean your calculations are flawed. The warlord meta is a direct mirror of the current unit&mastery balance. That being said, some warlords are just terrible by default.

  • First of all, thanks for the post Tackeshy, your hard work is appreciated!

    I do however agree with the murxies on this one. I think that for all or most of us new players dwarves looks and feels much stronger than elves, but I will make a point that the more dwarves there are the stronger elves becomes - because of the versatility.
    I have mad respect for anyone setting up counters that are more than 8v8 warlords. I can do it "easily" for myself, to counter an incoming attack, but if someone else joins the fight I am not going to spend 10 minutes to convince them to let me calculate the optimal strategy, because, and this is just my experience: Most people just want to play and not get told how to play. And I understand and am cool with that. Better they join the fight, get fallen and xp, than they sit with 100k+ unused troops.


    Back on point: A few days into the server I made 2 distinct points to my realm: 1: Thunderjaws are broken early game (and they will be even more broken next server) There is no counter to it, all you can do it watch while a 300k dwarf warlord smashes up your 140k elven warlord (exaggerated).

    Imagine this: Cerulean and Trankard, both equal warlords, with 950 cavalry in total, not regarding any masteries etc. Trankard will have a base 133.000 strength with TJ's (140 ea) while Cerulean will have 83.600 strength with Blackhunches. That is a base difference of 50k ish, for the new server in early game. Elves have no counter to TJ's untill they get access to either T3 cav (Whisperers) or T1 art (Sailstingers). Now, someone smart is going to come in and say this doesn't matter because early game no one will fight each other, and what is most important are goblins. And yes, Elves are much stronger against goblins given their anti-goblin cavalry, which are both cheap and effective.


    and 2: The only elven infantry to produce is Petrifiers.

    I am going to leave all the above because I took the time to write it, but I've been walking around in my apartment for about an hour just thinking about it, and in the end my thoughts comes down to this:

    Everything can be countered if you try hard enough. And that is where the bad players are separated from the good players. A Valkyrian berserker will counter a detonatress, and while it may "counter" a Breathing Bastion as well, same warlords, same masteries the Breathing Bastions will still win, eg. Valkyrians are IMO not a counter but simply a way to trade efficiently. A Slaying Mantis will counter Lightning paws, but it will simply be an efficient trade against Thunder Jaws. And so on. I can't count the times I've seen Aurora's with full Slaying Mantises going alone against a tower, and all I think is "free food for me". Heck, even when there are multiple warlords the Aurora will 9/10 times be at the top where I can simply counter with another Aurora of full Petrifiers. Even if I see a Paintsmith or Ruby at least my Petrifiers will trade efficiently against their units. Every player should have a backlog of all units so that they can always set up perfect counters. This is not realistic, and therefore there will always be some troops which by virtue are better than others. For instance, you are more likely to fight infantry than cav or art which is why Petrifiers are stronger than SM's. That is also why Thunderjaws will always be a better choice than LP unless countering. There are more dwarves than elven players (in my experience) so Whisperers will always be my favourite elven cavalry. I can go on and on about this, and I am sure that many of you will disagree with at least half of my points.

    All I am trying to say is that balancing is a very delicate and complicated issue. You can increase slot sizes on specific warlords or tweak their abilities to make them more or less desireable, in the same way that you can tweak unit stats. I don't think there is something inherently wrong with the masteries. Dwarves get's stronger early game, but elves if played smart have stronger units. Petrifiers > all dwarven infantry and Whisperers > all dwarven units. This again comes down to, the more dwarves there is in the game, the more the dwarves will use base units to counter each other, and the more a single rightly placed elven warlord will do damage. On average elves might be 10% weaker during the early/mid game, but that doesn't matter if I can just put up a 35% bonus unit and counter every warlord I meet. I don't see any reason to talk about dwarf v dwarf or elf v elf because they both have are equal, and therefore by definition balanced vs each other. Hope I made any sense, and didn't just ramble about nothing for nothing :)

  • Thanks Khrawn.


    Overall, I have little concern about the units. Balancing them is difficult, but they seem to be balanced more or less ok (except initiative, still not sure how it is balanced). My biggest concern is maseries. They give plain advantage of 9-3.5% to dwarfs and I don't think this is accounted for.


    Just a few notes where I don't necessarily agree:

    *Petrifiers are not better than any dwarven infantry. Its base power is 44, multiplied by 2*50% (attack and def bonus) you get 88. Dwarfs have Cratermaker 65 * (2*35%)= 110 and Breathing Bastion = 90 (no bonuses), both stronger.
    *when everyone is playing dwarf, for elf it only improves usability of 1 cavalry unit - Whisperer. Which is no good for anything else. And the bigger picture here is more important, effectively it looks like dwarf are genreally stronger and are preferred race, and elves only exist because they can slightly suppress them (even this is questionable statement).


    PS: updated first post. I have checked my calculations and they have not change too much. units and WLs seems to be balanced. No concerns around matching scenarios so far.

    But masteries remain uttely broken.

  • To clarify, bonuses are 50%, meaning Cratermakers 65*1,35 = 87,75, and Petrifiers are only 66 vs inf, not 88. I think Petrifiers are better because they trade a lot more efficiently. Equal petrifiers against equal Cratermakers/BB's will lose, but the time lost / resources lost will be larger for the dwarf than the elf. Of course the dwarf will win the fight which might or might not be most important.

    So I just did some math. Aurora goes to 581k strength (base) when having all masteries for infantry + slot upgrades. Rubyheart goes to 659k. However, accounting for Aurora's own multiplier she goes to 599k. That is BB's vs SM's. Then you have to factor in Rubyheart's skill as well, and he is a clear winner. No doubt that Rubyheart wins that engage. Just note I am assuming 5% extra troops from masteries, because I have just done the calculations with it, and I am not redoing them. Then we gotta factor in resource costs:

    5200 SM's at 1180 = 6.136.000 res
    4470 BB's at 12.739.500 res
    Already there Rubyheart has spent so much more res to get his troops. Now let's use Petrifiers:
    5200 Pet's at 550 = 2.860.000 res.

    I know that time is probably the largest factor and res is not a problem. But look at that stuff. If you are smart and you use Petrifiers (same stats as SM's, + faster than SM's so actually even better vs inf) you get a lost battle, but you can go 4 times against that same rubyheart before you've spent as much res as him AND you will most likely win in battle number 2.

    I could do this for every single warlord. But I am not going to. It is way too much trouble for my little brain to wrap my head around. I mean, what if the Dwarf were using cratermakers? Base strength would go down to 492k, more than 100k down however: After counting the 35% buff Ruby would have 665k (If I do the calculations right, that the 35% is applied above everything else, if it applies like the normal strength buffs then "only" 594k). Either way, the strength + his buff will still be enough to win the encounter, and he will have spent less resources, however he will now be weaker against a dwarf or if he were to meet stronger elven units such as T3 artillery or T2/T3 horses.

    My point is, if TG tweaks units enough, then they don't have to tweak masteries. If they tweak units they don't have to tweak units, if they tweak warlords they don't have to tweak masteries or units. It's 3 parts that all affect each other. So while your conclusion is to fix masteries (And I agree, I want better elf masteries pls), then my counterpoint is just that, it doesn't matter if they buff elven units or nerf dwarven talents or buffs elven talents etc. It's all going to have the same effect anyway: Make elves more viable. And what me and I think the murxies are saying is that, we think that elves are already viable. I agree that dwarves are "stronger" and that winning each encounter is more important than wearing down your enemies, because, in most cases players do not run out of troops. It is very hard to make a player run out of troops, like, completely. I have complained a lot that I have run out of troops, but even at my lowest I'd still be able to fill 4 warlords.

    So yeah. Hope it gave you my perspective on things. Sorry for always being so long in my writings.

    Edit: All numbers are using the new stats for units btw. so 66 for SM, 90 for BB, 65 for CM.

  • just one thing to consider, the "low" basic value of petrifiers make it hard to gather enough warlord power to position a pure infantry counter on top of your army, as usually the elf warlords with cav will be on top of your list, and sadly these get countered fairly well by high stacking CM dwarfs, as they can simply reach a higher base power level by putting CM or bastions into their slots, thanks to superior slot scaling.


    not to mention aurora herself gets frequently countered by any dwarf who fields at least one arti slot due to SE being a hard counter. Same applies to blackhunches.

  • "To clarify, bonuses are 50%..." - agree, when I multiplied them by 2*50% that was wrong (it was 1am I my brain took a shortcut; at least this mistake applied both to elves and dwarfs, lol). But it is not 50% either, because they also have 50% defence bonus.


    I know it is hard to calculate efverything, but I don't think that using 1 sample is enough to prove that something is true for the entire population.


    Comparing price of Slaying Mantis to Breathing Bastion is not right, they are different tier units (SM unlocked at lvl15, BB at lvl20). Elven infantry just don't go as high as Dwarven, and there is opposite situation for cavalry.

    I do agree with you, that units cost COULD be part of balancing mechanics (e.g. elves are weaker but cheaper/faster to build). I would prefer Devs to confirm this, before attempting any calculations.


    "My point is, if TG tweaks units enough, then they don't have to tweak masteries. " - 100% agree with you , the whole paragraph of yours is GOLD!!!
    At this point I also do not think elven units are improved enough to offset mastery points difference. I have updated the numbers with above bonus fix, and it looks like elven units are a little stronger (2% approx, it varies over time). Masteries give 9-3.5% benefit though, so still not enough.


    Somehow we do not talk about construction time bonus. Dwarfs have 39% bonus, while elves only 25%.

  • My personal opinion!


    So since I played a bit for now,

    I think I can join here, there are simply some things I just don't understand on this full Topic why aren't we checking the Warlords? Why aren't we going to check the Cash - Option Warlords compared to the regular ones?


    The real thing behind fights are Warlords, I got some really spicy thoughts about them but first; I noticed as some of you guys compared Cratermakers which has 35% Bonus against an full Aurora with Petrifiers which has 50% Bonus against Infantry. You might still win if the odds aren't against you.


    As the Picture below shows it u got the advantage over them.


    (didn't want to ask for permission to use this so I censored the opponent-name)


    Because even "Anti - Elves" or "Anti - Dwarfs" doesn't mean that your opponents troops bonuses are getting ignored.


    (there were a post who said something like that just to make it clearer for beginners)


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    My 2nd Point


    Let's start with the Warlords

    Personally I don't really care about speed in the first place, because early game it doesn't matter too much.
    What makes me really think that Dwarfs are really broken early game is the fact of the first Warlord u get.


    Welcome to a world, where Power doesn't really matter anymore because u have mitigation!

    Exactly "Staunchbraid" the first Dwarf Warlord

    Decreases damage taken by your units by 25%


    So that literally means every Unit who attacks her get valued FS - 25%


    So, in that case what's the first warlord for elves?

    Oh nice that u ask! Equinox. Wanna guess his passive?
    Oh damn son/daughter, u nearly got it.

    Increases Fighting Strength of army by 15%

    What does that mean?


    Basically the Units used by this Warlord gain FS by 15%


    Let's do simple math shall we?

    It says "decreases damage taken by units" what makes it even worse.

    Because "Increasing Fighting Strength" is implented directly.


    So, just as example my units are on 100k strength,

    now I gonna place them on Slot 1 and gain 15%.

    What means I have 115k.


    Now is my slot 1 attacking Staunchbraid.

    % Mitigation is getting higher the stronger your units are.


    Let's test it:


    115k x 25 / 100 = 28,75

    gives us a total of : 115 - 28,75 = 86,25

    so I lose my 15% Increase and additionally nearly 14% on top from my previous 100k.


    what makes out a 29% mitigation.


    and if u are even -50% on disadvantage of that well have fun against 75% mitigation.




    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Next we got to ask how many -25% Mitigation Warlords does Dwarfs already have?
    Oh just 3 that should be fine I guess, but wait - we can push 2 of them to 80 Morale.


    Now let's talk about Elves how many -25% Mitigation Warlords we got? - Exactly 1 and guess what..
    you have to pay for him.


    All 3 Mitigation Warlords of Dwarfs are Free.


    So for countering -25% Mitigation you need +25% DMG increase while attacking.


    Dwarfs got 1 but he's lvl 86 what do you guys think Elves got?
    Elves got 2 of them - the first available at lvl 16 and the second one guess what?

    Oh yes my dear, you have to buy him aswell.


    The only good thing is the first mitigation hero falls off because it's the first one.


    But even as the first one it's insane.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Oh and what's about the "Tech - Trees" ?



    I had quite a while issues with my skills an wasn't really clear what I should focus on so I searched for some Tech Trees and found this wonderful site.


    So, I checked my opponents Tech Tree as well, hm..


    Dwarfs need to reach lvl 15 to get some time reductions.



    so reaching lvl 18 means +9% faster building.


    While elves...



    "But elves get 5%" ... reach first lvl 33, because Dwarfs have to reach lvl 35 to get the next ones.

    While Elves are on 10% and Dwarfs have their 9% still going on.



    At the end Elves are talking about 25% Building speed what's definitly not bad, but drawfs just get 39%.

    Those are simple little facts. Why I think Dwarfs are kinda broken.

    Thx for taking your time to read through this hopefully my English wasn't too bad.
    Besides this is only my personal opinion.


    If u have some stuff to share with me, just let me know here or message me on Discord!

    Add: 𝕭𝖑𝖆𝖘𝖕𝖍𝖊𝖒𝖞#4737

  • Okiru,


    Point1:

    just FYI, in my comparison I never looked at units in asolation. Rather always multiplied by WL slot capacity.
    What I did not compare was WLs skills. They seem to be identical, applied in different order. Calculating the difference is too messy and I assume not significant enough.

    Comparing Rubyheart and Aurora should be done carefully, they are different lvl WLs, with different base capacity.

    I do not want to discuss premium vs non premium WLs on both sides right now, it is important but there are more important difference at hand.


    Point2:

    You missed something:
    in head to head encounter of Staunchbraid vs Equinox, considering their modifiers, Equinox army would indeed attack as if 86.25k army as you calculated. But 15% combat strength works both as attack and defence modifier. So when Staunchbraid attacks, his 100k army would be 85k instead.

    86.25k on elven side vs 85k on dwarven side is very close to call it eaven.


    point3:

    Thank you, time reduction is hugely unfair and should be fixed.

  • A few thoughts that - so far - were completely ignored:


    Comparing staunch with equinox in epic length is wasted breath. First of all you misrepresented the matchup because you didn't mention that staunch's bonus only works when she gets attacked while equinox's bonus works when his unit attack and when they are getting attacked. So overall both bonuses are pretty equal. And now the most important aspect: Even if they weren't, those WLs are utterly irrelevant. Now I wasted my breath as well, thank you.


    Secondly: "oh, 3 dwarven WLs can get to 80 morale, that's such a big advantage" - no it isn't. We recommended internally that nobody skills morale on island1+2+3 except on Vortex and Ebbel. Everytime I see a Hammerskull with 100 morale attacking us I laugh my ass off. That's so astonishingly bad. One might argue that it is not in Murx best interest to get this information onto the open, but if the devs listen to you and change their balancing because of these arguments you make, that would be even worse.


    Thirdly: If you want to compare elven and dwarven WLs, compare them in a realistic setting. Having WL x fight against WL y in a vacuum is pointless and doesn't prove anything. In neither direction.

    A realistic example: Your portal gets attacked by 20m. The 3 biggest WLs are 3xDarrak. What options do you have as a Dwarf to fight against that // what options do you have as an elf against that?

    As a dwarf: You can take your own darrak. That's it. Dragonbreath is no counter even equipped with 2xSE because Darrak only becomes the biggest WL if he is equipped with BB/TJ/SE. And BB are not countered by SE. Neither are TJ/SE. My point: As a dwarf you cannot do anything at all against Darrak, he is not to be countered from anyone in the whole WL-arsenal.

    If you have elves in your realm - lo and behold - you can use Mollus with 3xWH. Even 3xSC if you still have enough of those. And guess what? Both times Mollus wins.

    Please stop with the allegation that Elven WLs are inferior and their troops are worse. That's not the case. They are actually way better to counter dwarves than the other way around.


    Lastly: I am not against changing the masterpoints-skilltree, I feel like the elven one is slighly weaker, it has to be said that the building-time thing is pretty nicely done. I'd maybe bump up the building-time-reduction the elves get by 1-2% per point but overall I like the idea that elven can just always keep their building-time skilled while dwarves have to change in war and peacetime. That doesn't make it too linear/symmetrical.




    Summarized in a direct matchup elves vs dwarves the elves have the upper hand (by far) when it comes to countering the other races warlords. You can test that for yourself. Make an elf/dwarf (whatever you are not yourself) teammember set up a theoretical attack and look how you'd counter it. And then reverse the roles.

    (that's also a likely scenario, that 1 player sends all their WLs at you and another player sends all their WLs to another destination. Far more likely than staunch vs. equinox ^^)