I would assume that supporters of the “attack ground for the scorpion” option implicitly support a rework of the scorpion’s damage calculation so that said attack ground option makes relative sense. Though I’m just an outsider to the discussion. Your video is very informative, thank you!
Yeah, most likely. I've admitted they could rework a few things to make it "work," but ultimately I just don't think it's a great fit for the unit. It's almost like giving archers "attack ground," which would be more work and less payoff than just having ballistics.
@@AdmiralWololotbf one thing I believe is in the game but isn’t implemented is that walls can be given a height so that archers and (step lancers🤪) can’t fire over them. I like this idea so much, but also maybe then archers attack ground would make more sense. Get to a wall, aim UP as you can’t see what you’re hitting. Requires micro, thematically pleasing 😊
I had a screenshot of that discussion, but it didn't make the final cut. But yeah, congrats on being one of the few who knew that it least it wouldn't be OP. It's one of those things that most people don't have a good intuition for until they actually see it.
I love the memes and puns. In regards to the attack ground, three extra range mis-conception, it reminds me of the Ballista elephant. When ballista elephants are swarmed, on paper they're bolts should travel beyond the targeted enemy unit, and hit units beyond it. But in actuality the bolts just hits the ground almost immediately afterward. It doesn't always look like it, the game's perspective really doesn't help, but projectiles in aoe2 travel in "real space" along sensible trajectories. Ballista elephant don't fire from their knees with a bolt that goes parallel to the ground. They're actually firing from the shoulder and the bolt has to go down, toward the ground, to hit the, usually, shorter enemy unit. So yeah, attacking ground doesn't give you extra range. you aren't aiming at "scorpion level" above that tile. You're literally targeting the ground. EDIT - If you want an example showing a ballista elephant bolt traveling downwards, check out SOTL's Ballista Elephant Video, 2:20. If you slow down the video to 1/2 or 1/4 speed it's really obvious.
Yep, sometimes game logic makes a little more sense than people give it credit for. And the Ballista Elephant is a great reference point for a similar type of interaction.
i was about to go on a rant about how scorpions suffer from being low cost effective compared to other siege and how u have to mass them in order to be effective, unlike most other siege in the game, but then when checking things out to make sure i'm not making stuff up, i realized how there's a singular unit that works very similarly like the scorpion, but it actually works well and is even part of the meta for its civ: the organ gun i got rly curious about it, so i decided to open the editor and do some testing. turns out, there's many small factors that contribute to make organ guns feel much better to play with, when in reality heavy scorpions are actually *much more powerful* than elite organ guns when it comes to doing damage. factor 1: movement speed. organ guns have a mov speed of 0.85, which is almost as fast as the militia line, making them quite nimble for a siege unit. meanwhile, scorpions have a mov spd of 0.65, making them *extremely* slow. this might be one of, if not the main factor that scorpions are in such a bad state compared to organ guns, since organ guns can actually micro quite decently and even do some hit and run micro (having in mind that their atk delay is 0.6 while the scorpion is 0.22, even with a much worse atk delay their mov spd makes up for it), meanwhile the best scorpions can do is atk move and pray whatever is coming towards them die be4 reaching them. this also means organ guns can dodge onagers much better than scorpions can ever dream of, making onagers a much stronger counter to scorpions than to organ guns. factor 2: price. scorpions are way too expensive for a unit that can be countered so easily while also needing to be made in mass to be of any value. organ guns cost only 2/3 of the gold scorpions cost, all while having much better survivability. scorpions would need to be made much cheaper in order to be viable in their current state. factor 3: balistics. this should go without saying. organ guns have it, war ships have it, why not poor scorpions? this isn't AoE1 where balistas/helepolis hit like a freaking truck while having as much range as a bombard cannon while unit pathing is almost as bad as starcraft 1. besides, there's no amount of balistics in the world that can save them from onagers or bombard cannons. factor 4: organ gun thin, scorpion wide. organ guns need to cover a smaller area to have them all firing at once, while scorpions need more, and this is made WAY worse with them being so slow (aka even if u try to micro them to make them all fire, it'll still take way longer to get them all firing). them being wide also makes them an even easier target for onagers. those are all factors that isolated might not seem much, but their negative factors end up multiplying each other, making scorpions become so weak in comparison. so here are my proposed changes to make scorpions as viable as organ guns: (maybe) make balistics apply to them (or even make a separate tech that does nothing but give them the balistics effect) change cost from 75 wood 75 gold to 100 wood 55 gold (or 45 if balistics ends up being too strong) change movement speed to 0.8 i think those changes would be able to put them in a better spot without making them too strong and without making them overshadow organ guns (even tho Portuguese don't get heavy scorpions anyways)
I think that the scorpion could use some changes instead of halving the damage the units behind the target unit would take 70% damage that would be good change without changing the base attack another thing is making it effected by ballistics those 2 changes should do
The fact that only the Romans allow Ballistics to amplify the effectiveness of Scorpions is proof that Scorpions almost always miss and just suck in general. I believe that all Scorpions should benefit from Ballistics whilst giving Roman Scorpions an attack bonus VS other siege weapons, take 90% reduced damage from Mangonels, or something to help them stand out better.
maybe just give the scorpians big bonus dmg vs buildings. so its not a mostly useless "unit-only" attacker and can compete more or less with the dps on a building of a mangonel
The Scorpion is one of the worst units in the game. It's not worth any gold. Making it a Trash Unit would make it kinda OP, but even Light Cavalry can destroy them no problem, so here are a couple ways to fix the Scorpion: 1: Keep it useless, but make it 75 Wood and 15 Gold. I dunno, it's just not worth any Gold due to how useless it is. This coming from a Roman player who find solace in the Ballistics synergy. 2: Increase its Range and Mobility. This will allow it to force fights while still allowing Mangonels to hard counter them.
They see a little play now, even if too rare, so such a drastic buff will make them OP. You are probably using them offensively, where they suck. Defensively 🛡, they are *a lot* better.
@@RennieAsh Read what I said carefully. Mangonels will still hard counter Scorpions even when you increase the Scorpion's mobility and range. Oh, with that in mind, should that buff ever go live, Mongols' Drill should affect everything except Scorpions.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana I've been Celt Scorpion rushed a couple times, so no, not necessarily. Maybe it depends on the civilization. I do agree they are much more useful defensively, however. I've used them as support units (offensively so you're right, they suck in that position) for Legionaries, backed by Halberdiers for defense from cavalry. However I was facing a Franks player who was far ahead and had much more Gold than me, so my Scorpions couldn't do any damage to the 50+ tanky Paladins, and my 30ish Halbs weren't enough. I probably would've won had I used a Centurion, but I didn't have a Castle in that game because I forgot to get Stone early on and was bullied off any Stone reserves in the later parts of the game, moronic me. Then again, I am a noob stuck at 800 elo and can't climb. In fact, I prefer Single Player anyway, so don't criticize me for that. Even Single Player games reward strategic thinking and good micro, especially in harder difficulties.
This video is the best sales pitch I have heard for adding the attack ground option for scorpions. You make the case that it wouldn't be OP if it was done, which is great news for proponents of the idea. I believe it is still OP, however, and vote no.
@@ethanpappas2502he didn't really. He actually completely failed to create any resemblance of an argument for or against it. All he ended up saying was: it doesn't make it worse but it also doesn't make it better besides a bit more versatility. If he actually wanted to make a case against it, he should have sought cases that would create imbalance and lead scorpions to overperform in certain situations.
@@ethanpappas2502 being unable to target ground is one of the biggest limitations of scorpions, and they are currently used fairly often indicating that they are decently strong already
Definitely an option. I'm not even against it per se, but I would almost never use it, and I think people would find out its usually just not worth it.
You didn't really justify the title. The reason an unit should NEVER get a buff is if it would be overpowered, and you concluded that it would be underwhelming. Underwhelming buffs are fine imo.
Fair point, you can argue that the title is overstated. But considering how often random changes in AoE2 introduce new bugs, IMO a change that doesn't do enough to justify itself is sufficient reason for it to not be added. The problem with underwhelming buffs is that people will inevitably ask for more, such that the right combination of individually “underwhelming” buffs can become OP (this is something Hera has talked about).
My buff proposal for scorpions would be to make the bolt do full damage to all enemies it hits(like arambi) but reduce base damage by about 25-35% this will make it worse for single targets but better for groups.
Scorps dont need attack ground because they get ballistics. BBC´s with ballistics also would not need attack ground - Portuguese. 11 I thought every scorp benefits by ballistics:D
I've never found a use for scorpions. Period. In almost any situation that a Scorp could be useful, a mangonel, trubchet, or other unique unit will be better.
If it is underwhelming, I see no reason not to add it into the game 🎮. It will help out in certain situations like when no enemy is currently there (saves on delay due to projectile speed), hitting moving enemies, or you really want the scorpion to punish one choke point. In order to make the unit good, though, I would propose other changes. I think these would be good: • Increasing its speed by 0.10; speed is good and it will still be significantly slower than the Militia-line • Training time reduced to 20 seconds; to be better in early Castle 🏰🏯 Age, especially for their defensive 🛡 role as they can be rushed out to defend • Increase line of sight by 3; so they can see more to position themselves and suit their defensive role • +2/+1 armour 🛡 • +5 hit points • Heavy Scorpion upgrade be reduced in cost by 50%, as it is really high Not going to make them OP, but will make see more play, while keeping their unique-ness.
I don't think that something simply not being OP is a good enough reason to add it. Ideally changes should be useful, interesting, and targeted to address a specific weakness, which I dont think attack ground does very well. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world of course, but I like all of your other suggestions much more.
