You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [CONCLUSION] Balancing Quiz #1, and Balancing Quiz: King to Queen
I probably undercosted the Behemoth+++ without the behemoth passive. (I think I costed it as a +3 jump in value which is too small a jump, and ended up making it strictly better than legionary+++)
Though, because I provided unfitted values the comparisons in quiz #1 should be very clear (I listed king twice but both values are higher than mKaDA and lower than mKlDA)
Also my values are pre-nerf, 6 is how I'd cost a King after King-like units get bumped up by "1.5" cost (queen would also be 22 I think unless the nerf was limited to before the lifestone barrier)
Behemoth's passive is probably a multiplicative value-added rather than an additive one, because stronger pieces are increasingly vulnerable to random pokes from minions if you put them in the thick of battle. Right now it's being priced as a +50% cost increase, which "sounds" high but I honestly don't know if it is high.
(Coincidentally, if Behemoth+++ is priced correctly AND +50% is an accurate multiplier, this sets short-Queen-3 as a 14-value piece. I almost posted something about that in the K to Q thread, but I didn't, so I can't take any after-the-fact credit for it.)
Behemoth's really a very RNG matchup-dependent piece with its passive, it has no effect on Tiger/Dove/SoulFlare/Princess, less effect on weak minions like Pawns, 'average' effect on Militia/Salamnder, and maximum effect on RoyalGuard++/Fireball/Pikeman armies. I think the maximum-effect case makes it worth even higher amounts, and the current "about +6" is balanced around its average effect.
But yeah, it's totally accurate that Behemoth's passive also denies a weakness of expensive pieces and it's even better cause of it.
-main_gi
feels about right, I vastly prefer the old Behemoth+++ (KjAD with behemoth passive) but that can easily wreck an army without jumpers