Hello everyone! Decided to create a topic to see what people think that are the 20 most balanced units in zatikon. I created my list. Feedback apreciated.
#01 - Geomancer
#02 - Witch
#03 - Golem
#04 - Axeman
#05 - Rogue
#06 - Warlock
#07 - Magus
#08 - Diabolist
#09 - Acolyte
#10 - Templar
#11 - Crossbowman
#12 - Footman
#13 - Channeler
#14 - Abjurer
#15 - Dragon
#16 - Command Post
#17 - Skinwalker
#18 - Barracks
#19 - Lycanthrope
#20 - Druid
I've said this before, but I'll say it again. It's very crucial that Zatikon has units worth more/less then their pricetag suggests. This helps seperate good players from bad. If all units were balanced and everything was worth it down to the single dollar, then it wouldn't be as much fun playing Zatikon. More so, it's crucial that games come out with bad units. Here is Mark Rosewater, one of the creators of MTG explaining this:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5 (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5)
BALANCED UNITS COMMENTARY:
- I love, love druid, but think it's worth $300 despite I'd prefer to see it at $250.
- Magus is perfect at $350, but if there were only the basic units, it would be overpowerful.
- Command Post feels still like it should be 1 less to summon, but still great value at $100.
You missed some really balanced units: gateguard, shield bearer, rider, archer, bowman, matyr, knight, berserker, ballista..im sure I missed some
Well, if i missed some, is cuz it is my top 20 not all of them :P
Also, magus isn't overpowered, but i would like to see it without the spirit thing.
Druid doens't worth 300. It is perfect at 250.
In Magic the Gathering, they call the lesser cards "skill testers." But, I completely disagree with it and think it's just a way to justify bad balance.
Not that I think I could do any better. Imagine Zatikon without being able to ever do balance updates.
It really wouldn't help separate good players from bad; it would just mean some units didn't get played and would make for more complaints in random. The other major reason (aside from justification for bad balance) that MtG has a high variance in the balance of cards is to keep the trading economy strong. Sometimes a lesser card will become significantly more useful when a later addition combos well with it, and its value will increase (but we all know how much you hate combos, mongolian, so I don't know where you're going with this).
Kran, balanced in what format? Enchanter is incredibly powerful in 2v2 or coop. Skinwalker really depends on what your opponent is playing, and is usually undercosted vs. the AO (the AO tends to play a larger variety of units, so you're more likely to see a magus, necromancer, possessed, or templar to give you a permanent, high-value unit).
I'm a range junkie, so I don't use them much, but Golem ranks pretty high on the list of what I'd consider balanced.
Agree, golem is balanced. Magic the gathering can't be compared to zatikon.
Quote from: mongolian on June 07, 2009, 04:35:31 PM
I've said this before, but I'll say it again. It's very crucial that Zatikon has units worth more/less then their pricetag suggests. This helps seperate good players from bad. If all units were balanced and everything was worth it down to the single dollar, then it wouldn't be as much fun playing Zatikon. More so, it's crucial that games come out with bad units. Here is Mark Rosewater, one of the creators of MTG explaining this:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5 (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5)
Ive read those articles before and I never bought them. I think its a convenient excuse for the power difference in cards. When the real answer should be, 'We are only human and after making 10,000+ cards there will always be cards that fall short or are somewhat overpowered.'
Ive played Magic from day 1 Alpha and the better players win. There are too many variables for a newer player to know and an experienced player will overcome.
If somehow every piece was about equal to its stand alone value in Zaiton, that would be great, but almost impossible to achieve. A pieces value will always fluctuate with new pieces being introduced.
Wak
The problem with magic is that there are 10.000 cards that ocupy the same slot at deck. The difference is only rarity. That makes not the best players wins, but the richiest one. Simply buy the best cards, make some decks, after 6 months of training you will be in the list of "best players". One thing is say that a knight is stroger than an warrior. Another thing is say that a 1/2 unit is balanced as a 4/5 one, both with some special ability that really dont make the matter. The 1/2 unit usually dont have a very strong skill. Just common is newbies decks, the ones you can pay without loosing all your money. Zatikon is very very better at my concept, the strategy is good. I would say this game have the best strategy after chess. No strategy games can dispute with chess after all. Magic is only you remenber lots of things. Also much luck you need. I dont like luck factor in strategy games. I think i can support nothing else than "random games". ^^. Also i think that need a great and complex engine to cause both, free and add-on players allways have same chance of getting balanced armyes in random. Also games that you get a Dracolich and a Feathered Serpent in same army at random games should must be avoided.
Kran
Wakrob, you clearly show your an old generation MTG player. Type 1, or all cards, probablly died out in 2002. Where as Type 2, or only cards that were in production was the mainstream. Type 2, basically meant no one needed to spend over $20 on a deck.
If you converted MTG"s card into Zatikon's unit, it's not that far off. The main difference, there is no real rarity in Zatikon as you buy sets, not cards. Anyhow, the point of bringing up that article was to explain that every unit shouldn't be even in power. Nor can it be anyhow.
So ,yes it's not only ok, but good that a warrior doesn't equall a knight or a pikeman to a scout. A warrior is not worth $150 nor is a knight worth $250. So, they are fine both are fine at $200. All that Zatikon needs to do to avoid is simply overpowering units at their cost and being careful to avoid combo units.
20$ is not a small amount of money man! At least not here. Dont know how much people earns for work in USA.
I know making warrior 150 is bad, making knight 250 worse. I think the game need to add extra ability to warrior. But this is lowest priority. Combo units make zatikon become worse not better. I think conjurer portal shouldn't have the ability to summon enemyes, exept from the killer thing. Maybe portal range increased to 5. Also gates need to be more usefull. I would reccoment that:
Gate.
Life: 1
Actions: 1
Ally return to castle. Cost 1 action. 4 range.
All allyes in range 1 have all locations in range 1 of any other gates available for movement. Moving using this gate ability stuns the unit.
mongolian, it's kind of moot because that's not how Zatikon's unit design works. Each unit here has a unique role. Power/stat comparisons are irrelevant, as balance is really based on the value of the unit and how well it fulfills its purpose.
I don't see how every kind of synergy (aka combo play) is a bad thing. Combos have a major weakness, in that they usually require one or two support units to function. Attrition isn't the only way to win; sometimes you need to sacrifice a unit or two to pull the linchpin from your opponent's machine.
(That said and considered, there are some problem units - particularly archangels and possessed - which, even alone, can only be removed by a handful of units.)
Quote from: mongolian on June 07, 2009, 04:35:31 PMIt's very crucial that Zatikon has units worth more/less then their pricetag suggests. This helps seperate good players from bad.
I think this is a very bad design philosophy. Mark Rosewater is forced to say that because he has to print new cards to get money, not because he actually believes it, lol
Arch angels and possessed are what I consider "combo units" too. Possessed in random either means you wasted an extrme amount of points or just have an almost unkillable unit worse then a spirit.
Kran, I don't want see the warrior get another ability to make up for being the weakest $200. This is actually the main pintacle of this discussion. I'm fine and dandy with units being stronger at their point value. Zatikon has for the majority of it been about range.
Let me reiterate, Zatikon doesn't need to balance EVERY unit, it only needs to balance the few pieces that are extremely OVER or UNDER powered. Currently, I see very few pieces that fit that agenda.
I think would be nice. But everyone have self opine. The warrior is very usefull againt units that can summon, etc. But i agree that units like possessed, archangel, conjurer, diplomat (armistice thing) etc. All thise units need to be seriously revised or dramasticaly changed..., and lets faced, such units have hightiest priority. Some new units are good, like the sycophant, longbowman, lancer, shield bearer...
Also thanks for the tactician's contingency, very fun.
Uh, what's wrong with possessed, archangel, or conjurer? Well, admittedly, I think possessed is too expensive, but I don't see how they could really be threatening the game's experience, which seems to be the prevailing wind here.
I don't think there's any problem at all with units being built to work in combination with other units. Obviously, the number of possibilities skyrocket with these. Anything with an ability that affects your own units is a combo unit, even if it's just a humble healing spell. I don't think these are things we should be wary of. However, I do think that units with the capacity for combos should be evaluated for points as part of a good pairing with that unit.
I like broad, versatile synergy between units.
I avoid narrow, specialized combos. Sometimes they emerge, but they're not intended and I try my best to mitigate their potency.
Let's not get too abstract with balance debates. If there's a problem with a specific unit or combinations of units, we can identify them and design real solutions.
I just worry when people talk about combo units in general. I'd hate for every unit whose primary purpose is to affect allied units to be lumped into the "bad for Zatikon" category.
Archangel can only be permanently dealt with if transformed or stolen. Possessed needs to be stolen, killed by inorg, abjured/purged post-possession, or rocked. They require people to include units from a very small pool of foils.
Quote from: Jezebeau on June 09, 2009, 10:37:51 PM
I just worry when people talk about combo units in general. I'd hate for every unit whose primary purpose is to affect allied units to be lumped into the "bad for Zatikon" category.
Archangel can only be permanently dealt with if transformed or stolen. Possessed needs to be stolen, killed by inorg, abjured/purged post-possession, or rocked. They require people to include units from a very small pool of foils.
Or killed by gate guard on the castle. This is an important point for random, which always includes one in every army. Admittedly, you sacrifice a ranged unit to do so, but it's almost certainly worth the 400 points of possessed.
The possessed and the dracolich are overcosted. Conjurer have to many combos. There are the 3 main ploblems in game.
I would actually love to see both posessed and dracolith weakened and then see both with lower costs.
Possessed: Jumps 2 tiles per turn, costs $150. (special ability same)
Dracolith: Power4: Armor:0, HP: 4-6, costs $450 (special ability same) or