Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

grrr
Posts: 252
Joined: May 25th, 2007, 9:49 pm

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by grrr »

I am surprised no one tackled the source of all these problems yet ... simply remove drakes! Think about it, we wouldn't even need new drake anims then. And we could revert a lot of silly changes that were only done because of drakes vs * balance issues.

Honestly though, nerf northies and you'll have to get rid of drake flare leaders, too. The advantages mentioned here only work for the first 7 turns or so. But you don't always get these clashers kills as easily as stated here. And what then? Doomed to lose?

User avatar
Zarel
Posts: 700
Joined: July 15th, 2009, 8:24 am
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Zarel »

Huston wrote:what if healthy also allowed a dwarf to move 1 hex further than non healthy or non quick units every other turn.(in my experience a healthy person can move faster and farther than a non healthy person, but not faster than a fast (quick person)

so a summary make healthy retain what it does now. but every other turn allow a healthy dwarf to move 1 hex further than it normally would.
How's about it can move 1 hex further if it didn't fight last turn? It would tie in with the +2 as long as it doesn't fight the last turn, and it'd be simpler than "every other turn".

Or how about giving it +2 even if it does fight? It'd be like regen, except only +2, and it slows poison from -8 to -6 (or maybe -4).
Proud creator of the :whistle: smiley | I prefer the CC-0 license.

User avatar
Cackfiend
Posts: 436
Joined: January 28th, 2007, 7:36 am
Location: Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Cackfiend »

grrr wrote: Honestly though, nerf northies and you'll have to get rid of drake flare leaders, too. The advantages mentioned here only work for the first 7 turns or so. But you don't always get these clashers kills as easily as stated here. And what then? Doomed to lose?

Are you trying to say that if Drakes can survive the starting orc rush they will always win or something? You dont 1v1 much do you? :P

Also I randomed drakes and got a lv2 drake fighter as a leader in my last matchup vs orcs... i was missing the flare's leadership sorely but the fighters movement came in handy quite a bit
"There's no love in fear." - Maynard James Keenan

I'm the guy who's responsible for 40% Gliders in all hexes... I can now die a happy man. =D

Scatha
Posts: 111
Joined: March 29th, 2008, 2:55 pm

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Scatha »

I'll add some thoughts to the fray. I'll note that I've not played enough at a high level to comment on which balance issues really do need addressing, but I think I might be able to add something to the discussion of how one might help balance.

1) I remember when I came new to the game and, after playing through HttT, tried multiplayer (initially just against the computer). The first time I played northerners I thought it was very cool that they got the grunt for just 12g. It really adds to the 'horde' flavour of the faction, and I think it would be a big shame to see it go. If grunts are overpowered, wouldn't it work to tone down some other aspect (remove a hit point or something) instead? On the other hand, I see no flavour problem with giving clashers the fearless trait, though I guess it could make that trait feel less special (not a big deal).

2) It feels ugly design to have a unit which is just about never the right choice. I don't know whether that is the case, but it sounds like it is. On the other hand, it's fine to have a unit which is often not the right choice but good on occasion. If the problem is a question of making the faction overpowered, can some other aspect be weakened slightly?

3) I like the variety in traits among races for flavour reasons, so I think it would be a shame to see this go completely, but if it could be improved to feel less like the black sheep of the family that would be great.

4) This sounds kind of fun, but might have negative effects in campaigns, when there are less options to shuffle around between your fighters. Less frustration at getting a strong shaman, though! Has a good elegance whereby no other race gets dextrous.

User avatar
Sorrow
Posts: 230
Joined: July 25th, 2006, 12:07 am
Contact:

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Sorrow »

Its defiantly not only the first 6 turns that orcs only have an advantage over drake for. Its very easy to spam units and take villages that drakes cannot control with their few units. Certain maps make this a ridiculous advantage that drakes can only dig themselves out of with above average luck.


I still don't really see the point of healthy, I can't see how its not the weakest trait by far, Other than goblin traits. It would be fine maybe if dwarves had strong/res combined into one trait. But out of the pool of 5 for a dwarf I think healthy is bottom of the barrel.
Let us all measure in milliyards, that way we can all get along.

Replay Archive: http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/Replays

User avatar
mabeenot
Posts: 92
Joined: July 1st, 2009, 8:17 pm

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by mabeenot »

I'm for increasing the grunt's cost to 13g. In response to Scatha, I think 13g is still cheap enough to foster a horde mentality.

A glider is still worthwhile on large maps because their range makes up for their pitiful combat abilities. It's only on smaller maps that they seem useless. Maybe instead of making them stronger or more durable, the gliders should just be 1g cheaper.

I support attempting to fix healthy instead of abandoning it completely.

Scatha
Posts: 111
Joined: March 29th, 2008, 2:55 pm

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Scatha »

I guess that regular units for other factions tend to start at 14g (spearman, bowman, elvish fighter, footpad, poacher, skeleton archer, and nothing for drakes), so 13g would still help the image (I think the only competition from a level 1 unit is the thief), but it's hard to deny that it would suffer. On the other hand, it seems that it's the horde aspect precisely which is problematic, so toning this down may not be so bad.

Could the life-gain aspect of healthy be toned up? For instance, so that it functioned as heals+2 (thereby stacking with rest healing).

Frostfire
Posts: 17
Joined: July 31st, 2006, 5:02 am

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Frostfire »

That wouldn't really make up for the fact that healthy is taking up a space for another more useful trait. I mean 12 hp after sitting on a village for two turns? Doesn't sound too great. Healing effects are an arduous task to balance since they can upset things very quickly, and in my personal opinion, are partially what turned the ghost into such a lackluster unit.

As for everything else, I agree overall (in fact sorrow and I were discussing possible grunt changes over aim and I mentioned the price increase and he was all "naaah" so hah).

User avatar
alpha1
Posts: 198
Joined: February 29th, 2008, 12:57 am

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by alpha1 »

Cackfiend wrote: if you need some examples of why orc vs drake is OP take a look at any of my recent replays on ladder of this matchup. Also played a game vs MasterDerf last night that you can download here

I have tested the match up extensively and something needs to be done about it.
ok, i took a look at your game, things that caught my attention:

1. most of his units on the right side are quick, which really helps in rushes (in fact only 1 grunt is not quick, since non-quick wolves are already fast enough anyway)

2. you didnt manage the village stealing well (!), losing the left side villages was the main reason you lost imho

3. im not sure if recruiting 3 augurs against a grunt rush is a good idea, since a non-strong grunt can kill any non-resalient augur with a lucky swing and strong grunt kills even str/res augur at night. You will also lack drakes for the day push, but i guess it compensates, if you manage to kill enough orcs at night instead.

4. he had +20/+50% total luck during the first night (!), which really helped, since rushes are really luck dependant to work properly. I can imagine the game would have developed different, if he had -20%/-50% instead.

Generaly speaking if you survive a grunt rush (with any faction), with your economy intact and not too big loses, chances are high that you are in advantage, since he probably lost his momentum and more gold/exp than you. Ofc, this may be easier said than done, but thats how i would approach it. I added the replay to show what i mean. (I didnt grunt rush for quite some time, so perhaps i played a bit too ruthless with orcs, but i hope it still illustrates how i believe this match-up should be played with drakes)
EDIT: i also tried not to (ab)use leadership too much, to emulate your leader a bit, since i started with flare and was too lazy to restart.

Anyway you must specify if you want to add fearless into the trait pool, or want ALL clashers to be fearless by default. You provide Hi, trolls, and ghouls as examples for units with fearless (you may also add WC), while some of those units (Hi, trolls) *may* be fearless, while others (ghouls) are *always* fearless. Im not sure if the former will change anything, while the latter will really improve drakes against any race but UD (cause you shouldnt fight them with clashers at night). Now it will help drakes vs loys, which may be a good thing, since i, personaly, believe loys still have an advantage over drakes, but i would prefer nerfing loys instead of making drakes stronger, because both factions are already pretty strong compared to others.

Cackfiend wrote: I dont necessarily think taking strong out of the available traits is a weakening move. It means more dextrous archers and fighters. Also, I believe the common feeling of these matchups is that drakes vs elves is pretty balanced and orcs vs elves the elves have an edge.
ok, more dex archers is a good point. The question is, how will it influence fighters? (shamans and scouts are less important). Now fighters' main purpose is melee combat. They also have an additional ranged attack, which is a nice feature, but it plays only a secondary role, since its not strong enough to deal any serious damage. Removing "strong" would make fighters do their main task a bit worse, while it will help them a bit with a secondary one. This would make them worse units overall, especially since elves have no problems with ranged damage, yet lack hp/damage on their melee combatant compared to other factions. Furthermore, when i play elves i usually find myself with fighters to archers ratio of 3/1 (depends on the match-up: more archers vs drakes, woses and mages instead of additional archers vs everything else, no archers vs ud). Therefore, your suggestions will make a bigger part of elvish army worse, while improving a smaller one. And its really questionable, whether few more dex archers can outweigh lack of strong fighters.
Shortform: removing strong will make archers stronger and fighters weaker. Since fighters play a much bigger role in elvish army than archers, elves in general will become weaker.

and the final question: why should "strong" be removed? I really see no benefits balance wise, or problems strong trait on elves causes in any other match-up.

orcs vs elves: well elves have probably an advantage in the middle/late game, but they are susceptible to grunt rush as well (especially if they have not enough fighters/orcs get lucky)

drakes vs elves: from what i have experienced myself and other players told me, playing as elf vs drake is difficult because you can neither properly attack at day, nor at night.

troll fire weakness: i think its a good idea from the orc-mirror point of view, im not sure how it will influence other match-ups though and it may need some testing against loys and elves. On the other side, i rarely use trolls against the aforementioned races anyway, so it shouldnt be game breaking.
Attachments
2p_-_Weldyn_Channel_replay_for_cackfiend.gz
(14.71 KiB) Downloaded 100 times
If you have any wishes or suggestions concerning the TGT or just want to drop me a message, pls pm me at: alpha1_pm
I won't be able to see any messages that are sent to alpha1.

User avatar
Doc Paterson
Drake Cartographer
Posts: 1973
Joined: February 21st, 2005, 9:37 pm
Location: Kazakh
Contact:

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Doc Paterson »

I'd like to see the convergence of opposing ideas in the form of Cack vs. Alpha replays....

;)
I will not tell you my corner / where threads don't get locked because of mostly no reason /
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses.
-Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme

User avatar
Sorrow
Posts: 230
Joined: July 25th, 2006, 12:07 am
Contact:

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Sorrow »

Doc Paterson wrote:I'd like to see the convergence of opposing ideas in the form of Cack vs. Alpha replays....

;)
As if most of us can't see where that will go :\
Let us all measure in milliyards, that way we can all get along.

Replay Archive: http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/Replays

grrr
Posts: 252
Joined: May 25th, 2007, 9:49 pm

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by grrr »

Cackfiend wrote: Are you trying to say that if Drakes can survive the starting orc rush they will always win or something? You dont 1v1 much do you? :P

Also I randomed drakes and got a lv2 drake fighter as a leader in my last matchup vs orcs... i was missing the flare's leadership sorely but the fighters movement came in handy quite a bit
Odd, your clashers + augurs game I saw draw a different picture. Oh I get it! You want to be able to recruit anti-UD while still surviving the grunt rush!

User avatar
Cackfiend
Posts: 436
Joined: January 28th, 2007, 7:36 am
Location: Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Cackfiend »

alpha1 wrote: 2. you didnt manage the village stealing well (!), losing the left side villages was the main reason you lost imho
and how would u suggest that u manage to protect your villages better as drake? i would be totally willing to play u in some matches to highlight some of our points and counterpoints
alpha1 wrote: 3. im not sure if recruiting 3 augurs against a grunt rush is a good idea, since a non-strong grunt can kill any non-resalient augur with a lucky swing and strong grunt kills even str/res augur at night. You will also lack drakes for the day push, but i guess it compensates, if you manage to kill enough orcs at night instead.
I have practiced this matchup many times and have determined clasher/augur is the best combo vs an orc rush. Skirms are the thing that are too risky and very luck dependant vs orcs, not nearly as much with augurs. In fact if you can get your augurs in 60% defense and the orc focuses on them during the night it usually leaves your augurs mostly alive and ur drakes near full hps once the dawn comes
alpha1 wrote: 4. he had +20/+50% total luck during the first night (!), which really helped, since rushes are really luck dependant to work properly. I can imagine the game would have developed different, if he had -20%/-50% instead.
yes luck happens, but even with even EV the matchup is still very much in orcs favor. If EV is 10%+ on the drakes side it helps a whole lot but you cant rely on luck just so you have a chance of winning, thats just not how strategy games are suppose to work when balanced properly
alpha1 wrote: Anyway you must specify if you want to add fearless into the trait pool, or want ALL clashers to be fearless by default.
sorry if i was unclear about this... fearless should be added to the existing trait pool


alpha1 wrote: ok, more dex archers is a good point. The question is, how will it influence fighters? (shamans and scouts are less important). Now fighters' main purpose is melee combat. They also have an additional ranged attack, which is a nice feature, but it plays only a secondary role, since its not strong enough to deal any serious damage. Removing "strong" would make fighters do their main task a bit worse, while it will help them a bit with a secondary one. This would make them worse units overall, especially since elves have no problems with ranged damage, yet lack hp/damage on their melee combatant compared to other factions. Furthermore, when i play elves i usually find myself with fighters to archers ratio of 3/1 (depends on the match-up: more archers vs drakes, woses and mages instead of additional archers vs everything else, no archers vs ud). Therefore, your suggestions will make a bigger part of elvish army worse, while improving a smaller one. And its really questionable, whether few more dex archers can outweigh lack of strong fighters.
Shortform: removing strong will make archers stronger and fighters weaker. Since fighters play a much bigger role in elvish army than archers, elves in general will become weaker.

and the final question: why should "strong" be removed? I really see no benefits balance wise, or problems strong trait on elves causes in any other match-up.
IMO the reason most people make so many elf fighters vs almost every matchup is #1 theyre cheap at 14g and #2 theyre OP when they get the strong trait. more dextrous fighters shooting at 4-3 ranged is great vs any melee units theyre attacking since they generally go ranged on those units to start with. more dextrous archers means that people would make archers more too which i dont think is a bad thing at all. the only race its bad to recruit a lot of archers against is undead. more dextrous scouts and shamans is minor but also a factor in the change.



alpha1 wrote: orcs vs elves: well elves have probably an advantage in the middle/late game, but they are susceptible to grunt rush as well (especially if they have not enough fighters/orcs get lucky)

drakes vs elves: from what i have experienced myself and other players told me, playing as elf vs drake is difficult because you can neither properly attack at day, nor at night.
orcs vs elves has always been up to the initial luck of the orc though hasnt it. if the orc is gonna rush an elf, the elf has a damn good chance of defending vs it... theres no way the orc has an advantage here and if the elf even gets a little lucky the orc is generally screwed. id say the elf has a 60% or so winnable rate vs a rushing orc

drake vs elf... you have the most offensive race in the game vs the 2nd most defensible race in the game ... so why would you be wanting to attack with the elf? lol you wait for the drake to attack you and retaliate... the way of the elves.

archers light up drakes, especially when theyre dextrous.
"There's no love in fear." - Maynard James Keenan

I'm the guy who's responsible for 40% Gliders in all hexes... I can now die a happy man. =D

User avatar
Cackfiend
Posts: 436
Joined: January 28th, 2007, 7:36 am
Location: Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Cackfiend »

grrr wrote:
Cackfiend wrote: Are you trying to say that if Drakes can survive the starting orc rush they will always win or something? You dont 1v1 much do you? :P

Also I randomed drakes and got a lv2 drake fighter as a leader in my last matchup vs orcs... i was missing the flare's leadership sorely but the fighters movement came in handy quite a bit
Odd, your clashers + augurs game I saw draw a different picture. Oh I get it! You want to be able to recruit anti-UD while still surviving the grunt rush!
trolling my thread eh?

since when is clasher/augur an anti UD recruit anyway. Everyone who knows me knows that i recruit strictly fighters/burners and maybe 1 augur vs undead... maybe 2 augurs vs heavy ghoul recruits

the only reason i was able to recruit all clashers/augurs is because he picked orc. Sad isnt it, that he picked and i didnt so i knew exactly the best things to recruit vs a rush and i was still crushed so easily?

vs random when i pick drakes i generally always pick skirm/augur/fighter/clasher which is even worse vs the orc rush, and forget about it when i add in a 5th recruit of glider and i end up fighting an orc rush... its even more of a joke
"There's no love in fear." - Maynard James Keenan

I'm the guy who's responsible for 40% Gliders in all hexes... I can now die a happy man. =D

cmonyiman
Posts: 28
Joined: October 5th, 2008, 2:05 pm

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by cmonyiman »

I don't mean to distribute you all lessons (which most of you would be in need of by the way) but this idea is the only logical one in the whole thread:

"I am surprised no one tackled the source of all these problems yet ... simply remove drakes! Think about it, we wouldn't even need new drake anims then. And we could revert a lot of silly changes that were only done because of drakes vs * balance issues."

Locked