The objective here is just to estimate which piece is more valuable?
It's probably B > A, but not by much I don't think.
The "wait 2 turns" clause on B is basically flavor text in games between skilled players (or at least in games where nobody gets surprise-Angel-mated).
One reason I think B>A is based on user statistics: we have Demon++ as a decent proxy for A, a piece which is eminently fair if for no other reason than its lack of use by players > 3000 rating other than myself.
Also, the longer reach of piece B makes it more difficult to prevent its forks with minions alone, since the vast majority of minions only control one square ahead of them. You therefore have to advance your minions to pre-emptively ward off a piece like B, which invites the opponent to start knocking holes in your formation with his own minions.
Piece A does have one advantage over B: from the back row, A jumps onto row 3, which is a safer vantage point to attack forward than row 4 where B lands (see my previous post comparing queen-4 to queen-5 in the K-to-Q thread). Also, Knight jumps are tighter and easier to maneuver with than Camel jumps.
Nonetheless, I would expect B>A in overall strength: perhaps 17-ish for A, 18-19 for B, although 19 seems a stretch if Queen remains at 21. I would probably value Rook+Nightrider as >= Queen, however (although any Nightrider piece in CEO would need to be teleports-only beyond the initial (2,1) jump).
Chancellor is comparable to demon, less mobility options but longer reach I’d place it at 17.
Samurai is, however, comparable to an angel with a LOT more reach, they are definitely the more difficult (and more common) piece to face. I’d place it at 19, since it lacks angel's on death effect.
Favour values them both at 18 but Samurai is definitely better than Chancellor, despite knight being better than camel.
Assuming favor chess samurai has FC slowness (as stated in the note), B>A but B is still balancable. It's basically an angel without the "frills" smashed with a rook, and angel is already a scary unit as is. The slowness serves to keep the unit in check and not just instantly cause a T1 checkmate. I don't want FC samurai in CEO as it skews the meta heavily toward paladins. I would intentionally overcost B for fear of it degenerating the meta if it were fairly costed, so 20/21 seems right for it.
Assuming it can be used on turn 1, B≫A (≫ is the "much greater than" symbol). T1 checkmate is broken.
B > A, bigger range is harder / more commital (esp. with minions) to defend. Or described from other side, safer to poke / provoke reaction.
We already have demon2 / demon3, which can after 1 move use the unblockables to fork minion line, but not backline. This option / reason is not good enough for d2/3 to see play (it is played, just not for rushing initial forks). Having the backline forks after 1 move - not so often would enemy have his 3rd row undefended. So I think A is much less scary as rush. Also, the extra teleports / swaps on demon3 compensate for the extra fork after 1 move.
On other hand, when we had valkyrie before the action limitation, it was used a lot for rush, and angel is too. B is less tradeable ofc, but opponents 4th is defended much less often. Starting as "frozen" (3 turn inaction) helps to neutralise the rush, but even with that I would be afraid of A more from the start of match.
For me, attached to rook, the B unblockables are harder to predict and more dangerous than bishop (B vs queen0). Maybe not so much for better players, but I expect with lower skill, or higher ceiling to predict, they are even more so. Which shows that I don't consider myself near the top players, and therefore my view / feel of balance might differ from them. How much of this advantage is compensated by the initial "freeze" ? At around my rank, I don't think it does very much, I think the surprise factor can sneak in easier when the position gets more complicated, rather then straight king rush from start. Still it does help if the opponents setup is not a standard, lacking option to react adequately in 1 / few moves.
I consider demon3 <= A < queen0, A about 18 / 19.
I consider angel2, queen0 < B < angel 3, B about 22.
Id say A is easier to use than B because knight jumps are far more intuitive but B is better because of its longer range if you can actually calculate its jumps because your opponent won't be able to
i do agree B > A Long range is stronger, and the wait effect is similar to valk, however with more power. Rook+knight is a strong combo, but long range unblockables are very powerful, the likes of ninja and angel are strong compared to units with slightly shorter range, and even stronger than some longer range non-unblockables.
i think this is for us to specify where are the boundaries of early, mid, and end game, maybe a little PATIENCE can help us
i'm thinking/building formulas for calculating the pieces values at these 3 different times, with the "global value" being the early value modified a little by the other 2
the PROPERTY of range of A (2) is less than B(3), but the area control of A (8/25=0.320 (decimals :O )) is more than B (8/49=0.163) considering only the green squares, so after early game we could consider A>B, cause it has 66% range of B, but aprox. 200% of area control
I stand by you. A easily fork units closely pack together while B have the advantage of long range, it's like comparing sword to spear. If B cannot move until move 3, A can reach any location of B's target by turn 3, but A is easily counter by minion wall compare to B.
The objective here is just to estimate which piece is more valuable?
It's probably B > A, but not by much I don't think.
The "wait 2 turns" clause on B is basically flavor text in games between skilled players (or at least in games where nobody gets surprise-Angel-mated).
One reason I think B>A is based on user statistics: we have Demon++ as a decent proxy for A, a piece which is eminently fair if for no other reason than its lack of use by players > 3000 rating other than myself.
Also, the longer reach of piece B makes it more difficult to prevent its forks with minions alone, since the vast majority of minions only control one square ahead of them. You therefore have to advance your minions to pre-emptively ward off a piece like B, which invites the opponent to start knocking holes in your formation with his own minions.
Piece A does have one advantage over B: from the back row, A jumps onto row 3, which is a safer vantage point to attack forward than row 4 where B lands (see my previous post comparing queen-4 to queen-5 in the K-to-Q thread). Also, Knight jumps are tighter and easier to maneuver with than Camel jumps.
Nonetheless, I would expect B>A in overall strength: perhaps 17-ish for A, 18-19 for B, although 19 seems a stretch if Queen remains at 21. I would probably value Rook+Nightrider as >= Queen, however (although any Nightrider piece in CEO would need to be teleports-only beyond the initial (2,1) jump).
Chancellor is comparable to demon, less mobility options but longer reach I’d place it at 17.
Samurai is, however, comparable to an angel with a LOT more reach, they are definitely the more difficult (and more common) piece to face. I’d place it at 19, since it lacks angel's on death effect.
Favour values them both at 18 but Samurai is definitely better than Chancellor, despite knight being better than camel.
Assuming favor chess samurai has FC slowness (as stated in the note), B>A but B is still balancable. It's basically an angel without the "frills" smashed with a rook, and angel is already a scary unit as is. The slowness serves to keep the unit in check and not just instantly cause a T1 checkmate. I don't want FC samurai in CEO as it skews the meta heavily toward paladins. I would intentionally overcost B for fear of it degenerating the meta if it were fairly costed, so 20/21 seems right for it.
Assuming it can be used on turn 1, B≫A (≫ is the "much greater than" symbol). T1 checkmate is broken.
A<B. Longer range is less intuitive, but harder for the enemy to block, and ultimately stronger.
B > A, bigger range is harder / more commital (esp. with minions) to defend. Or described from other side, safer to poke / provoke reaction.
We already have demon2 / demon3, which can after 1 move use the unblockables to fork minion line, but not backline. This option / reason is not good enough for d2/3 to see play (it is played, just not for rushing initial forks). Having the backline forks after 1 move - not so often would enemy have his 3rd row undefended. So I think A is much less scary as rush. Also, the extra teleports / swaps on demon3 compensate for the extra fork after 1 move.
On other hand, when we had valkyrie before the action limitation, it was used a lot for rush, and angel is too. B is less tradeable ofc, but opponents 4th is defended much less often. Starting as "frozen" (3 turn inaction) helps to neutralise the rush, but even with that I would be afraid of A more from the start of match.
For me, attached to rook, the B unblockables are harder to predict and more dangerous than bishop (B vs queen0). Maybe not so much for better players, but I expect with lower skill, or higher ceiling to predict, they are even more so. Which shows that I don't consider myself near the top players, and therefore my view / feel of balance might differ from them. How much of this advantage is compensated by the initial "freeze" ? At around my rank, I don't think it does very much, I think the surprise factor can sneak in easier when the position gets more complicated, rather then straight king rush from start. Still it does help if the opponents setup is not a standard, lacking option to react adequately in 1 / few moves.
I consider demon3 <= A < queen0, A about 18 / 19.
I consider angel2, queen0 < B < angel 3, B about 22.
B is better but not by much I think, maybe 17 for A and 19 for B
Id say A is easier to use than B because knight jumps are far more intuitive but B is better because of its longer range if you can actually calculate its jumps because your opponent won't be able to
i do agree B > A Long range is stronger, and the wait effect is similar to valk, however with more power. Rook+knight is a strong combo, but long range unblockables are very powerful, the likes of ninja and angel are strong compared to units with slightly shorter range, and even stronger than some longer range non-unblockables.
[Queen++] - bishop = 18
valk + rook = 20
hopefully we can get 12/13 cost dragon
knight (5/6 after v54) + warrior (7) = 12/13
i think this is for us to specify where are the boundaries of early, mid, and end game, maybe a little PATIENCE can help us
i'm thinking/building formulas for calculating the pieces values at these 3 different times, with the "global value" being the early value modified a little by the other 2
the PROPERTY of range of A (2) is less than B(3), but the area control of A (8/25=0.320 (decimals :O )) is more than B (8/49=0.163) considering only the green squares, so after early game we could consider A>B, cause it has 66% range of B, but aprox. 200% of area control
dragon rulz :)
I stand by you. A easily fork units closely pack together while B have the advantage of long range, it's like comparing sword to spear. If B cannot move until move 3, A can reach any location of B's target by turn 3, but A is easily counter by minion wall compare to B.