Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

[TheEmptyLord]

Hmm, about the cavalrymen, I can't say I agree or disagree, though -1 dmg and -2 hp would probably be as far as I would go.

The dwarves however, are harder to work with. I have always liked dwarves, perhaps it's influenced by my terrible luck, as I almost always get hit with any faction and lower defenses become a good trade for resistances. It's strange though, I never seem to get more than 1-3 healthy dwarves in 10, but that could be my luck speaking again. If anything, either make poison do 6 damage to all dwarves as opposed to 8, or do 6 when they have the healthy trait. As said before, poison is one of the few things that undead has to offer against dwarves (minus relatively cheap units in comparison).

When you said that you don't think dwarves are any top players favorite faction you were most likely correct, but they remain near the top of my list, whether or not I am considered skilled. Dwarves have good resistances, with no negative ones and with their scout, they have a unit with one more movement and good melee + range. Also, though this pertains more to the map, if there is a decent amount of hills and especially mountains, they can not only hold an area, but also become nearly indestructible with resistances, healthy and 60-70% def backed up by other units to cover them. The addition of outlaws finishes the balance, providing them with faster units that include thief and footpad defenses (with lower resistances, essentially the antithesis of dwarves) and units like poachers and thugs who level quickly, do a decent amount of damage for low cost, and the poacher is supplemented by 60% on forests and 50% on swamps to cover the terrain which dwarves have problems on.

Anyhow, as I said, I could be biased towards dwarves but that's my opinion. About the trappers, though I agree it would probably benefit to remove them from random, they are decent units, as a retreat on 60% trees with no negative resistances is quite useful. (or even swamps). Still, as said they are one of the worst units to be leaders so I've got no legitimate objection there. The dwarf Pathfinder is an excellent unit, as leader and not, with good range and melee as well as dwarf resistances, so I have no idea why he hasn't been included in the trapper's place.

EDIT: fixed a few spelling errors and grammatical problems

[Doc Paterson]

The only reason why Loyalists seem so strong and Dwarves so weak is that most popular multiplayer maps have a lot of flatland, very little hills and almost no mountains (Loyalist's scout units can't even walk over mountains!).

Gee, thanks for breaking it all down to something so simple.

Do you have any idea what it would be like if I increased the concentration of hills and/or mountains by even 10-20 percent? The complaints that you're hearing now would be multiplied by five. Depending on the matchup, you'd have more stalemates, more grunt spam dominance, more flying abuse, etc. etc. etc. The fact is that even the addition of one or two mountains and/or hills can have a huge influence over many of the matchups, and every time that such a change is made, it needs to be analyzed and considered very, very closely. For those who may not remember, the wack maps of very early Wesnoth had a significantly higher concentration of all of the heavier, land-unit slowing terrain types (more mountains, more shallow water...) The factions were practically unbalanceable, and serious changes in the maps had to occur. I could go on and on about that, but let's get back to your comment-

By all means, make an attempt to actually apply what you're convinced of. Suggest specific edits, and try them. Post replays. Explain the impact that your ideas would have on all of the other matchups. I think you'll ultimately find that most of the 1v1s are pretty damn close to where they ought to be, and that the player base as a whole dislikes change.

In short: Be productive. I'm open to well-reasoned change proposals, that are specific in nature. You do have to put some effort into it though, and avoid the kind of blatantly oversimplified statements you posted above.

[The Black Sword]

Yes, I think everyone understands that dwarves would do better and loyals worse with more hills/mountains.

I think it should be assumed that when someone talks about unit balance changes that they are talking about the default multiplayer maps(in which there is rarely a large cluster of hills or mountains in an important position).
This is not because multiplayer is more important but because in campaigns and the like the author can adjust the balance manually themselves.

As doc says, if you think there should be more hills on the mainline maps, that's an issue that should be brought up separately(and most likely shot down ).

[TheEmptyLord]

I never suggested putting more maps in, I simply meant to clarify that Loyalists are the best race on flat-ground and perhaps also mentions that it could be the reason they are considered slightly overpowered. I do know the time it takes to design maps, especially good ones and have great respect for those who do it.

[Mabuse]

Loyalist:
Most universal faction in game + overpowered units (I remember my game with ps7 while he pointed that Heavy Infantry is very OP vs dwarves but there is actually no point in recruting them as cavs are better ). Basically you can play everything with loyalists as you have units that can do anything. The sad thing is that you dont need to as making cav yours base unit vs orcs, undead and dwarves is a great choice (OP)

hyv inf versus dwarves ?

so how will the hvy inf remove the dwarves from mountain/villages and is not getting shot and beaten to a pulp with their extremely low moves, terrain defs and whatnot ?

i would use HI only on the most rare occasions

Just wanted to add that refusing access to the strong trait is another mean to prevent the 9-3 happy rounding.

seems a good suggestion, also this would make more cav intelligent/speedy which goes also along with reduced HP

[Doc Paterson]

TheEmptyLord: Maybe there was some confusion because I posted after you, but that post of mine was in response to Rya (who I quoted at the beginning).

[Cackfiend]

Had a match today of Dwarves vs Loyalist and my opponent made lots of Cavs. Pretty interesting fact about Gryphons vs Cavalry...

With Current Cav Resist:
12-2 becomes 8-2
13-2 becomes 9-2

With Proposed nerf to Cav Resist
12-2 becomes 10-2
13-2 becomes 10-2



I attacked a resilient cavalry at night with 3 gryphons and hardly put a dent in it... replay posted below

[Cackfiend]

So I spoke with Noy tonight and it doesnt sound like any nerf to the cav has any chance of happening. I wish the devs would reconsider either a 1gp increase, resist nerf, or -2 or so hp nerf.

Also wish I could make a poll with these options (and a 4th option that says no nerf required)

[Rya]

Gee, thanks for breaking it all down to something so simple. [...]

Well I never said it's simply to made a perfectly balanced map or that said map is more fun to play, just that if maps had more mountains and hills, Dwarves would be stronger and Cavalry weaker.

Though there are some neet tricks you can do like making a narrow shortcut path with one single mountain tile. Makes it impossible for Cav to use it, but still doesn't break so much of the map's balance.

Making a whole map and proving that it is balanced is nothing I'm capable of.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I can upload nerfed-horses-era to add-on server if you guys will come into any conclusion about them.

[Kolbur]

So I spoke with Noy tonight and it doesnt sound like any nerf to the cav has any chance of happening. I wish the devs would reconsider either a 1gp increase, resist nerf, or -2 or so hp nerf.

Also wish I could make a poll with these options (and a 4th option that says no nerf required)

That's very sad.
Not even -2hp? Did he give a reason or just say no?

[Cackfiend]

So I spoke with Noy tonight and it doesnt sound like any nerf to the cav has any chance of happening. I wish the devs would reconsider either a 1gp increase, resist nerf, or -2 or so hp nerf.

Also wish I could make a poll with these options (and a 4th option that says no nerf required)

That's very sad.
Not even -2hp? Did he give a reason or just say no?

He says Wesnoth is balanced for 2v2, not for 1v1. "1v1 puts too few units on the field and thus really puts more focus on individual unit balances. the unity density is too low, particularly with how a lot of 1v1s are designed" He said him and the other devs got together and discussed it and decided no cav nerf will happen because this is just my point of view on it and its mostly a map problem not a unit problem.

=/

good news is Dwarves will most likely be seeing a buff

[Velensk]

Wesnoth is balanced for 2v2, not for 1v1

Interesting, I've never heard that before. That is peculiar in that I've always seen a lot more focus on balancing 1vs1 maps than 2vs2 maps. I had assumed that this was because the game was intended to be balanced based on them.

Cavalry being overly strong on 1vs1 maps at the very least is Crackfields opinion but I recon that it is one shared by many of the people who would know the facts that back it best.

The problem with saying that loyalist cavalry are overpowered due to map problems is that it's very hard (close to impossible) to make maps that don't spawn dozens of other balance problems that compensate for current state of loyalist cavalry (in fact, a number of these problems show in several of the 2vs2 maps on occasion). From this perspective you could either make it so that cavalry aren't something that needs so much compensation for, you could try to fix everything else so that you can have masses of rougher terrain cavalry don't like without causing problems (this seems a fairly implausible answer to me), or we can just live with the fact that there will be problems. While a certain amount of the last is necessary, I think that at least experimenting with the first would be beneficial.

[tekelili]

He says Wesnoth is balanced for 2v2, not for 1v1. "1v1 puts too few units on the field and thus really puts more focus on individual unit balances. the unity density is too low, particularly with how a lot of 1v1s are designed"

I must say I never though loys were a little overpowered and cavs so hard until started play 1v1. If 2v2 is where factions balanced is considered then I am agree with developers decision of dont nerf cavs.

But now I feel curiosity: It is really footpad spam vs ud so powerfull on 2v2 to nerf him? I never felt like it

[neki]

@Cackfiend:

- Cavs resistance + HP should be left as they are. They are the only units that make undead and orc rush manageable.

- Making Dwarves healthy treat cut poison in half will just make dwarf vs. orc impossible for orc. If orc doesn't attack, game goes againt him. Dwarf camps in strong strategical positions which are impossible for orc to attack. Poison is the only way to regain acces to those strategical positions for Orc. Loyalists and Elves have mages, Drakes have powerful ranged&melee + augurs, undead have adepts, orcs don't have anything. Camp a healthy resilient dwarf on a mountain and that's your lasy highly efficient defence against orc... Do not mess with orc poison, the healthy +2 bonus is more than enough.