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

User avatar
Aethaeryn
Translator
Posts: 1553
Joined: September 15th, 2007, 10:21 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Aethaeryn »

cmonyiman wrote: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."
Yes, it certainly would be easier than doing actual balance tweaks. In fact, we should remove a chaotic as well (balances alignments you can get on Random then; would save mapmakers trouble). I vote northerners, since their rushes are one of the problems in this thread. </sarcasm>

The most balanced the game could be would be to have one faction, or even just the elvish fighter.
Aethaeryn (User Page)
Wiki Moderator (wiki)
Latin Translator [wiki=Latin Translation](wiki)[/wiki]
Maintainer of Thunderstone Era (wiki) and Aethaeryn's Maps [wiki=Aethaeryn's Maps](wiki)[/wiki]

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:and how would u suggest that u manage to protect your villages better as drake?
Its difficult with your recruit, thats why i usually buy a fast flyer to guard my villages (as you can see in my replay). Naga on your swamp village tied 3 of your units for 2 turns, while having even a glider there, would have freed 2 units for the right side (not too mention the income lose/extra income for the opponent). Sending a clasher to the left during the dawn after the first night might have also helped with the wolf stealing villages.
Cackfiend wrote:i would be totally willing to play u in some matches to highlight some of our points and counterpoints
im more of a 2vs2 player (in fact i played 1 serious 1vs1 in the last 4 month), but i guess some play testing cant hurt. Im usually on in the evening (ca. 21:00) GMT+1
Cackfiend wrote: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.
I cant speak for most people, so i will speak for myself. The reason why i buy lots of fighters is the same as for buying lots of grunts and spears: they are your "staple" units, your main melee fighters which also happen to be very cost efficient. You can seldom go wrong if you buy another one of those units.
Cackfiend wrote: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.
Well somehow, having a dex fighter feels like a waste for me and i would usually prefer other traits (sometimes even int).
There are situations when you need a "decisive" attack (like killing a unit) and there are situations when you cant properly attack, so you "poke" the enemy with arrows. Range poking is good, but more often then not an injured unit can retreat and heal, while dead unit is dead. If i need to kill a 12 hp mage on 50% and have only 1 attack spot, then i want to have a reliable kill. And i would rather prefer that reliable kill to few more points of damage while attacking a grunt with ranged.
Cackfiend wrote: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
ok, maybe those are only my preferences, but i usually like to play as orcs vs elves and feel uneasy when i have to play elves vs orcs (at least in the beginning).
Cackfiend wrote: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.
im aware about the way of elves, i just find it problematic giving away the initiative and waiting for drake to attack, especially if he is piggy banking
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
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 »

cmonyiman wrote: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'd prefer if only 'elite' players post in this thread, and people that play 1v1 a lot, preferably high ranked ladder players. these are the people that will truly understand 1v1 balance issues, which is what this thread is about.

and if you're referring to giving me lessons, id love to be 'instructed'.

alpha1 wrote:
Cackfiend wrote:and how would u suggest that u manage to protect your villages better as drake?
Its difficult with your recruit, thats why i usually buy a fast flyer to guard my villages (as you can see in my replay). Naga on your swamp village tied 3 of your units for 2 turns, while having even a glider there, would have freed 2 units for the right side (not too mention the income lose/extra income for the opponent). Sending a clasher to the left during the dawn after the first night might have also helped with the wolf stealing villages.

....
alpha1 wrote: im more of a 2vs2 player (in fact i played 1 serious 1vs1 in the last 4 month), but i guess some play testing cant hurt. Im usually on in the evening (ca. 21:00) GMT+1

*facepalm*
"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 didn't mean to offend you all "elite" players and even less you "high ranked ladder players" because I'm just a newbie.
But now you've opened my eyes and I see those changes are perfection. To those I would also like to add these necessary points:

1. Put Yeti in the Elvish faction
We all know how elves are unbalanced.

2. Put magical to horse
Isn't it annoying when you don't hit?

3. Put all dwarves 5mp
They're too slow!

How fun it is to discuss such marvellous ideas.
Thanks for your time.

User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by JW »

cmonyiman wrote:I didn't mean to offend you all "elite" players and even less you "high ranked ladder players" because I'm just a newbie.
But now you've opened my eyes and I see those changes are perfection. To those I would also like to add these necessary points:

1. Put Yeti in the Elvish faction
We all know how elves are unbalanced.

2. Put magical to horse
Isn't it annoying when you don't hit?

3. Put all dwarves 5mp
They're too slow!

How fun it is to discuss such marvellous ideas.
Thanks for your time.

I think it would also be fantastic for Bats to have 60% defense everywhere,

Bowman to have 7-3 ranged,

and leave the HI the way he is because he is a fantastic unit that doesn't need any boosts.

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: *facepalm*
which means im a noob, right? excuse me for wasting your valuable time with my absurd comments.
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 »

The nastier this thread gets, the less likely it becomes that any real change will come out of it. Let's not worry about who sucks, or who's elite, and let's definitely not worry about ladder rank, which I think a lot of us would agree, is a *particularly* lame and inaccurate gauge of how good people are.

In my opinion, it would be both amusing and productive for some of the people involved in this debate to play some matches with one another and post the results. The more personal and dramatic it gets though, the less likely it becomes that people will want to make the time for these matches. The burden of proof is on those who want a change - and it really can't be otherwise. I know that there've already been some replays provided, but if you want to convince MP devs of your perspective, you're probably going to need more.

I've said my piece here, and you guys know that I mostly agree with Cackfiend's proposals, the exception being the fearless Clasher proposal.

Let's just chill it down a little bit though.
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
Death
Posts: 85
Joined: April 15th, 2008, 3:34 am

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Death »

Per request, here's a recent orc(p1, picked) v drake(random) matchup on freelands.

Orcs rush, Drakes run, counter, die.
Attachments
OrcVsDrakeonFreelandsDeath.gz
Orc p1
(20.04 KiB) Downloaded 105 times

soul_steven
Posts: 144
Joined: September 5th, 2009, 5:47 pm

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by soul_steven »

Cackfiend wrote:'id prefer if only 'elite' players post in this thread, and people that play 1v1 a lot, preferably high ranked ladder players. these are the people that will truly understand 1v1 balance issues, which is what this thread is about.
quote]
One quick question I have about this thread. Shouldnt there be play testing for 2vs2 as well? From what I see the multiplayer server is constructed of a lot of 2vs2 games and I think that a lot of the suggestions that have been made that might help in 1vs1 games but make certain factions overpowered or underpowered in 2vs2.
Last edited by soul_steven on September 7th, 2009, 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chaoticwanderer
Posts: 109
Joined: August 25th, 2008, 9:41 pm

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by chaoticwanderer »

Death wrote:Per request, here's a recent orc(p1, picked) v drake(random) matchup on freelands.

Orcs rush, Drakes run, counter, die.
Just to be fair, you did make some mistakes in your game.
The RNG helps those who help themselves.

User avatar
Faello
Posts: 441
Joined: June 7th, 2005, 9:01 am
Location: Holy Office

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Faello »

I see a very dangerous trend here to balance the game towards the 1vs1 games, totally forgetting about possible 2vs2 issues with the proposed changes.
Doc Paterson wrote:Summary of where I now stand on the various points:-Clasher gets fearless - If it's in response to Northerner/Drake, I think that problem is better addressed by making Grunts 13G. I don't think the increase would have much of an influence in the other matchups.
Due to the fact that majority of 2vs2's are full of units while map sizes are generally similar, it's harder to utlize possible numerical advantage of orcs on the maps like Clash or Xanthe while maps like Loris Rivers or Path of Daggers, thanks to their unique design, makes drakes already incredibly effective there. I don't see a point to boost drakes in any way, and I consider giving clasher the fearless trait and raising a grunt cost a pure and 100% definite mistake. Better work on more balanced maps than threw away already slightly drake-oriented 2vs2 balance, exchanging it with even more flawed system.
Doc Paterson wrote:- Trolls get fire weakness - Support completely, for reasons of dynamism.
Again, it would hit orcs incredibly hard in 2vs2's.

Doc Paterson wrote:- Glider buff - Neutral. I don't think changing defense to 40 everywhere would be an overpowering move by any means, and would probably be fine, I just hesitate to power up Drake in even the smallest ways.
Drakes don't need any power up right now imo. In fact saurian augur xp limit for 2nd level should be risen because it's is too low for such a versatile unit.
Doc Paterson wrote:- Elves lose strong trait - I misread the original proposal, and thought Cack was talking only about Fighters losing it. If we're talking about all elves losing it, a move that increases the likelihood of Dextrous Archers (and dextrous Fighters and Scouts, but this, to me, is less significant), then I am in favor of it.
Bad idea imo.
Doc Paterson wrote:- Healthy gets trashed - I don't know....I do think it's the weakest trait, but would rather see it improved than see it go altogether.
This trait is, generally speaking, almost useless.
Doc Paterson wrote:I'd also like to add that we may *also* want to address this Grunt issue by making small map tweaks. I think that this new concept of P2 starting with a village will be a step in the right direction. Adjusting TOD to find the most generally balanced start is also an option, and as always, I encourage people to discuss this stuff in the Map Digest thread.
Yes, if you want to balance orcs vs drakes in 1vs1, better re-design some 1vs1 maps. It won't affect 2vs2 this way.

Regarding rest of discussion: I don't have a time to discuss all of the things written in the topic and I generally support grrr and alpha1 opinions. I also find grrr proposition to erase drakes from the roster a very appealing proposition :P since drakes are the constant source of various balance problems in BfW imo and I don't understand why drakes, either undepowered or overpowered (depending on the map size and design) need a boost.

Actually, if fearless clasher idea will go through the tests and will be present in the next stable branch, I don't see a point to pick up random anymore.

"Pick drakes, you don't want to lose, do you ?"
The yellow jester does not play
but gently pulls the strings
and smiles as the puppets dance
in the court of the Crimson King.

User avatar
Mystery
Posts: 55
Joined: June 17th, 2009, 3:16 pm

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Mystery »

Providing replays to "prove" something never works. You just get told what you may or may not have done wrong and that uber-perfect play would show the oh-so-perfect balance that exists. -_- It's a catch-all cop-out for disagreeable sorts who don't want to (or can't) explain in words why the original argument is flawed. I, however, love to argue! :eng:

1) Meh, I don't have much to say about this. Clashers getting Fearless doesn't seem like it'd help the match-up that much anyway, Drakes are still very susceptible to Poison due to their low unit numbers. Increasing the cost of Grunts isn't really the way to do it either. Anything will upset balance elsewhere with unknown effects. "Whatever."

"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" Consider that a Skirmisher can survive a non-Strong Grunt regardless of its traits and all Resilient Skirmishers (even Resil/Quick) are guaranteed to survive even Strong Grunts. All non-Resilient Augurs die to two hits from all Grunts and even Strong/Resilient Augurs die in two hits from Strong Grunts. Skirmishers also cost 1g less, can freely slip in and out of favorable terrain through the opponent's ZoC, and dish out double the retaliatory damage.

i.e. Skirmishers are much better than Augurs at defending against a Grunt rush. You're doing it wrong. Taking defense into account, they're actually even better than Clashers on average, though susceptible to bad luck and you'd still want the Clashers' presence come daylight.

2) The Glider is a poor unit overall but it has its uses. It's mostly useful for its extra MP at the start of the match, being able to grab a village or two earlier than any other Drakes unit could. They're not bad at nabbing low-health kills with their Marksman and Sky Drake is pretty good if you do manage to level one. I'd rather see Glider get a 1 MP cost over Deep Water (and Frozen) like its higher-level brethren. :/ Drakes already have trouble with water, despite being able to effortlessly cross Shallow, due to their really low defense there and lack of a dedicated sea unit. It's nothing absolutely necessary, though.

3) Healthy is junk on paper but it's really not all that bad. Ulfs don't mind it due to their 5 MP base and they appreciate any extra survivability they can get, considering their fragility. It's good on Thunderers since Strong has otherwise diminished use (primarily ranged unit). It's okay on Guardsmen since they're a rare recruit focused mostly on defense anyway, making Fighters the only ones that really groan about having it. (Rather, not getting Quick, which Healthy reduces their chance of getting.) I can get behind the idea of buffing it, namely allowing the +2 heal every turn as proposed, but don't remove it. It's a good flavor ability and its existing effect is better in practice than it looks.

As far as the overall balance of Knalgan is concerned, Dwarves are excellent units for their cost especially if you can get them on frontline Hills/Mountains. (Their resists make up for lower Defense in most other terrains.) If movement is of dire importance, that's why they can recruit Outlaws. The Footpad in particular is quite possibly the best general-purpose unit in the game and they also shine at holding open terrain where your Dwarves are weakest. Their biggest problem is absolutely no access to elemental damage, making certain units a real pain to kill (namely Ghosts and Woses), and lack of MM/Magical damage. Then again, that's why they have Ulfs. :P

4) *shrug* Don't see a point.

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 »

Mystery wrote:Providing replays to "prove" something never works. You just get told what you may or may not have done wrong and that uber-perfect play would show the oh-so-perfect balance that exists. -_- It's a catch-all cop-out for disagreeable sorts who don't want to (or can't) explain in words why the original argument is flawed.
You know guys, as much as I didn't like the tone that this thread took on, I do understand why Cackfiend was getting frustrated.

Mystery: Historically speaking, replays have been instrumental in a huge number of balance changes. I guess you wouldn't know that, if you've not been around as long as some of us. They absolutely do matter, and I really wish that some of the naysayers here would actually get on the server and put their theories to the test.

Faello - 2v2 balance is a lot simpler - I almost want to say that it's a lot sloppier for lack of a better term. Playerside pressure is barely an issue at all thanks to 1221, and map formations that would be problematic in 1v1s are acceptable due to this (the 1221) and the probabilities of factional mixing. Many of us believe that 1v1s are the purest form of balance analysis -because- if we want to pin down a problem between two factions, mixing in all number of other units from outside of their factions, is obscurring the problem with added noise. Whatever the obstacle on a 2v2 map, chances are a lot higher that your team will have a counter or at the very least, a solid answer.

Anyways, I think this thread is going nowhere fast, and that's a shame, because I think several of the proposals were very good. I'm going to have to retire from this argument. Have fun. :P
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
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 »

doc summed it up pretty perfectly ;)

would have preferred if this thread could have just been in the dev forums where only the devs had access to it, public opinion is too biased or ignorant or arrogant to get anything really accomplished



heres to hoping the decision makers take into account all that i have said in this thread and maybe we'll see some changes on the test version
"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
Pentarctagon
Forum Administrator
Posts: 4221
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Earth (occasionally)

Re: Cackfiend's Balance Change Ideas for 1.7

Post by Pentarctagon »

Cackfiend wrote:would have preferred if this thread could have just been in the dev forums where only the devs had access to it, public opinion is too biased or ignorant or arrogant to get anything really accomplished
insulting the average player can't have helped to much either lol :roll: .
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code

Locked