User Interface Unit 'ratings' should be more consistent!

[DeletedUser332]

This is something that's been bugging me for a while. It appears to me that the 'crossed swords' icons used to 'rate' units in the various battle screens of the game are providing slightly misleading info, for the sake of appearing 'neat' and 'balanced' at a glance. Currently the system is laid out with each Barracks unit rated at 4/4, with the Mercenary Camp and Training Grounds units 'paired up' in ratings. For example, Cerberus is rated as 3 against Light Range and 5 against Mage, while the Drone Rider is rated as 5 against Light Range and 3 against Mage. The other 4 unit types in these buildings follow a similar 'pairing' pattern.

HOWEVER! The actual bonuses each unit has do not add up with these ratings a lot of the time. Let's look at Mage-type units as an example:

Priest: 4/4 with an 80/80 bonus against Heavy Range, and a 70/0 bonus against Heavy Melee
Abbot: 4/4 with an 80/70 bonus against Heavy Range, and a 40/30 bonus against Heavy Melee
Banshee (2 star): 4/2 with a 90/80 bonus against Heavy Range, and a 10/70 bonus against Heavy Melee
Enchantress: 5/3 with a 80/70 bonus against Heavy Range, and a 40/40 bonus against Heavy Melee
Blossom Mage (2 star): 2/4 with a 30/70 bonus against Heavy Range, and a 90/70 bonus against Heavy Melee
Thornrose Mage: 3/5 with a 20/60 bonus against Heavy Range, and a 90/80 bonus against Heavy Melee

Highlighting one specific case, we see that the 2-star Blossom Mage is rated as 'two swords' against Heavy Range units, despite having higher numerical bonuses in both categories than the Thornrose Mage which is rated at 'three swords'. Another example is with the Banshee, rated 'two swords' against Heavy Melee while having a bonus that's comparable to 'four sword' Priests, albeit flipped.

In summary, I'm hoping the developers can take closer look at the unit rating system and make it more nuanced and accurate, reflecting how different each unit's bonuses and stats actually are. Again, Mages are just the unit type I decided to use as an example, but there are numerous examples of inconsistencies among the other unit types as well.

 

[Dony]

this ratings were made for people who has no clue about fighting to somehow lead them what to choose
regarding 4/4 ratings in barracs its because barracks units are usually good for both scenarios, while units in MC and BG will have 5/3 or 3/5 focusing more on 1 type more then the other
and since i reported that long time ago i doubt there will be some additional changes to this
the more complex they make this ratings the more confusing it will be for people who want to be lead by them
every fighter should by now know how to use this units tho

 

[Ashrem]

Do the ratings go only by attack defense bonus? I always assumed that they factor in the special abilities like drains and strike-back. i personally find the strike-back of the Orc strategist to be a significant factor in when I choose to fight with them.

 

[Dony]

there is a tooltip on rating when you mouse hover it explaining what everyting it acounts

 

[DeletedUser332]

I'll admit that I didn't really account for things like unit abilities in my evaluation of unit ratings, and that perhaps Inno did. However, it still seems to me a bit too 'neat' that everything is laid out more or less 'perfectly' where every unit gets an extra sword against each of its favored types with each upgrade, and the MC/TG units are always paired together as 'opposite strength' to each other. I just don't think it actually plays out like that. For example, human Mortars do not feel like a 4/4 unit on par with the other unit types, as even the 2-star Orc Strategist fares better than it does in nearly every matchup with nearly double the damage, 50% more HP and the ability to strike back and even potentially retreat from some opponents. Feels a lot better than the 2/4 rating it has at the second upgrade when compared to the 3-star 4/4 Mortar.

@Dony
You have a good point about it possibly intending to be for players who aren't too used to the battle system, but as someone who is I can't help but look at those ratings and shake my head with how uninformative they are. Prior to this display the unit information simply displayed the bonuses (without needing to hover), which I personally think was a lot better. Keeping that information still available, but buried under a misleading visual isn't a very good compromise IMO. Going back to my previous example, it could lead to something like a player using Mortars in a battle because they're rated better, and then wonder why they lost when they could've used Orc Strategists and barely suffered a scratch despite the unit appearing 'worse'. This situation has happened to me before, and many like it as well. I feel that in order to educate a player about how battling works, they should be presented accurate information as well when necessary and these tooltips don't accomplish that in my opinion.

 

[Dony]

I'll admit that I didn't really account for things like unit abilities in my evaluation of unit ratings, and that perhaps Inno did. However, it still seems to me a bit too 'neat' that everything is laid out more or less 'perfectly' where every unit gets an extra sword against each of its favored types with each upgrade, and the MC/TG units are always paired together as 'opposite strength' to each other. I just don't think it actually plays out like that. For example, human Mortars do not feel like a 4/4 unit on par with the other unit types, as even the 2-star Orc Strategist fares better than it does in nearly every matchup with nearly double the damage, 50% more HP and the ability to strike back and even potentially retreat from some opponents. Feels a lot better than the 2/4 rating it has at the second upgrade when compared to the 3-star 4/4 Mortar.

1 thing you are forgeting is that sometime you face (often) different types of enemies and while orc strategist can be really good against light ranged, its not so good against light melee, while mortar is more or less better when you face this 2 combinations, thats why rating 4/4

 

[DeletedUser1596]

If you thing someone from the dev team will even consider reading this, take a look at this ancient thread https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/swords.7934/

 

[Marindor]

Dony's post basically covers it all, the swords are just there to give a general idea about which unit type is good against which other user type. The further you get into the game, the more complex it will become if you keep fighting manually (specific bonuses, initiative, things like that). These are things that require a bit more strategic work from our players instead of only looking at the swords with the general indications I'll archive this thread now.