Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

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

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
The Black Sword
Posts: 373
Joined: October 13th, 2008, 4:35 pm

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by The Black Sword » December 14th, 2010, 6:09 pm

Pretty surprised to hear you say that. IMO Dwarves are one of the worst factions if not THE worst faction and it is mostly due to their mobility issues. At a high level of 1v1 play its far too easy to outmaneuver a dwarf heavy army and this game is largely about Divide & Conquer.
Well as I said I don't play dwarves much, they're probably the only faction I've never picked(aside from when I was trying HODOR). However, dwarves have an advantage against UD, a slight disadvantage against loyals and are evens with everyone else IMO. Which, for me, puts them in 2nd place since everyone has a bit of a disadvantage against loyals. Obviously you disagree with the evens bit and you could be right but the times I have played with dwarves against the other factions I've never felt I was at a disadvantage(and I can't remember what the results were :P ).

As for the Trapper he is probably the current worst leader in default atm but there's always going to be differences in leaders power levels. I remember people suggesting giving other leaders traits when the dwarves etc. got quick and aside from making a new set of unique leaders I think thats the best solution.

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

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Cackfiend » December 14th, 2010, 6:24 pm

Link to the game of my Orcs vs Rigors Dwarves where assassins were used to great affect. Note that even if dwarves got half dmg from poison (either inherently or via healthy trait) if is still incredinly effective vs hard to hit outlaws.

http://ladder.subversiva.org/gamedetail ... %3A16%3A23

The Black Sword wrote:
Pretty surprised to hear you say that. IMO Dwarves are one of the worst factions if not THE worst faction and it is mostly due to their mobility issues. At a high level of 1v1 play its far too easy to outmaneuver a dwarf heavy army and this game is largely about Divide & Conquer.
Well as I said I don't play dwarves much, they're probably the only faction I've never picked(aside from when I was trying HODOR). However, dwarves have an advantage against UD, a slight disadvantage against loyals and are evens with everyone else IMO. Which, for me, puts them in 2nd place since everyone has a bit of a disadvantage against loyals. Obviously you disagree with the evens bit and you could be right but the times I have played with dwarves against the other factions I've never felt I was at a disadvantage(and I can't remember what the results were :P ).

As for the Trapper he is probably the current worst leader in default atm but there's always going to be differences in leaders power levels. I remember people suggesting giving other leaders traits when the dwarves etc. got quick and aside from making a new set of unique leaders I think thats the best solution.
Well I think everyone agrees that dwarves currently own undead, but keep in mind the footpad nerfs coming in 1.9 (-1 dmg). Other than that, I believe Leocrotta has said on numerable occasions that Loyalist have a large advantage over Dwarves because of mobility and I would agree. Loyalist are also generally seen as having a small disadvantage vs Undead... especially on a map with a low amount of villages making it hard for them to recruit HI and Mages.
"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

Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3988
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Velensk » December 14th, 2010, 6:55 pm

I'd disagree with the last statement. In my experience loyalists can run over undead using mostly cavalry with a couple fencers and mages undead have one unit that fights cavalry very well (the skeleton archer) but that unit does not adequately counter it at day and with the cavalries mobility attempting to fight not at day is difficult. I'll edit this post to include a link to a game which demonstrates this.
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php ... &start=615
Second game from the top.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."

User avatar
krotop
2009 Map Contest Winner
Posts: 433
Joined: June 8th, 2006, 3:05 pm
Location: Bordeaux, France

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by krotop » December 14th, 2010, 7:01 pm

The Black Sword wrote:3. Reduce attacks to 5-3
The last one is a pretty big change but the unit would still be very good as a scout and a defender but without the possibility of getting 9-3 at day you'd need to buy other units to attack.
Doc Paterson wrote:Agreed that the 9-3 strong ones are part of the problem...I've started thinking of these guys as "riders with lightsabers." My fix would be: melee to 5-3, and HP-2.
Just wanted to add that refusing access to the strong trait is another mean to prevent the 9-3 happy rounding.
Don't trust me, I'm just average player.
***
Game feedback for the Nightmares of Meloen
Art feedback by mystic x the unknown

User avatar
Quetzalcoatl
Posts: 207
Joined: March 18th, 2009, 3:26 pm

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Quetzalcoatl » December 14th, 2010, 7:09 pm

TBH Thieves are actually very powerful backstabbers vs Drakes even as blade damage (and devastating vs saurians). Simply too many units in the game that a piercing damage thief would destroy.
Saurs resist pierce while are vunerable to blade. Devastating or not there is no good way to attack drakes with knalgans right now so it cant make things worse and after all, to be able to backstab any unit you always need a bit of help from yours enemy ;).
Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.

User avatar
Reepurr
Posts: 1088
Joined: August 29th, 2010, 5:38 pm

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Reepurr » December 14th, 2010, 7:33 pm

Cackfiend wrote:Glider: 32hp
Scout: 32hps
Wolf: 32hps
Gryphon: 34 hps (and 24 GP!)
Cavalry: 38 hps

Lowering cav to 34 or 36 would be a nice balance step.
Gliders have a marksman ranged attack as well as an impact melee attack. Pretty good against ghosts, actually, and being drakes they have a smattering of minor resists.

ELVISH Scouts: Both melee and ranged, which can be kind of cool. Also note their 60% resists in lots of places where normal horses don't get a bonus, and 1mp in forests...

Wolves: Yeeeah, these are kind of rubbish, but they're quite nice in hills and mountains.

Gryphons: 50% defence everywhere... :D

Cavalrymen: They make up for their health with low pierce resistance.


These are my reasons of thinking this balanced.
- Also bear in mind that units are not balanced against units, but factions are balanced against factions. :)
"What do you mean, "a dwarvish dragonguard with marksman is overpowered"?"

Story of a Drake Outcast | The Nonsense Era
Played HttT-Underground Channels? Thought it was rubbish? Help us develop it here!

User avatar
Horus2
Posts: 407
Joined: September 26th, 2010, 1:05 pm

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Horus2 » December 14th, 2010, 8:43 pm

It's strange to see that everyone state the loyalists are overpovered. Not because it isn't true, but why noone did a correction in the issue.
First of all, scouts are just a unit too. I can't understand the aim of the latest douple-nerf of the footpad and bat, they were good as are. I read something like devs didn't want them to be useful for anything else than occupying villages... is it true? Hey, the recruitment is already about choosing those part of the units which are clearly useful in the present matchup. Weakening footpad is like -1 unit and just makes the strategical part less diverse... no alternative playstyle, no surprises, pay your 3 spearmen, 2 cav and clash with the proper amount of grunts. It makes me unhappy. :(
I want the normal footie and bat back.


However cavalryman is clearly another case. As Quetzalcoatl quoted from ps7, cavs have nearly the same resistance and damage as HIs but they have double movement points and are even cheaper which is ridiculous. When I made my Pick your recruits clone i got some experience about precise unit balance, and i also had to realize they are the way most underpriced units. I don't like the idea of weakening their resistances, since it's a nice characteristic ability which makes them differ from other scouts. I prefer to keep it and rather increase their cost for their skills. In my calculations cav is around 19 gold (could be around 17 with six 0% res), and in exchange HI's price can be lowered to 18 for the cases when resistances are really needed for loys - like against knalga. And if they are in need of quick damage dealers, they still have the Horseman (which might be underpriced as well but that's now unimportant)

I'm not sure about the boost of the healthy trait. In knalga vs northeners the ulf and the assassin are the tools to prevent stalemate. The problem is that assassins are effective against a bigger percent of the knalga army than ulf against the northeners, but i didn't know how severe the problem is to state for sure they are in need of better poison resistances. Maybe that would make it over the top from the orcish point of view; however i feel undead would suffer from it greatly. Ghouls are sometimes the last bastion for UD against dwarf and still they can be deactivated by an ulf easily. Increasing the cost of the orcish assy won't work either since 17 is already near to the "over the limit" in other matchups. If i have to decide, i wouldn't change anything here. And for a last note, Knalga's playstyle benefits from the healty trait more than it makes the dwarves slow; banishing it from game would increase the total number of quick dwarves by only 10%, and that's not huge. :)

For erasing the Trapper from the random: YES. Gimme the quick Thunderguard, oh God of Random Numbers, and not an accidental handicap. Although this is one of the beauty of the chosen faction... but in overall, again yes. If you say the possibilities are too narrow (only 4 leaders left), then it might be nice to put the Dwarvish Pathfinder in just like there's a Lieutenant amongst the loyalist leaders. :D

Another question is what can be done about rebels. I think most of us state with the same confidence they are underpowered like the loyalists are über.



Opinion is over, returning to base.

Yoyobuae
Posts: 408
Joined: July 24th, 2009, 8:38 pm

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Yoyobuae » December 14th, 2010, 10:33 pm

Reepurr wrote:Cavalrymen: They make up for their health with low pierce resistance.
Cavalrymen have somewhat high HP, assorted resists and high mobility.

Why not also give them the same treatment that drakes get: 30% defense in flat. :twisted:

Atz
Art Contributor
Posts: 313
Joined: August 21st, 2008, 2:22 am

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Atz » December 15th, 2010, 12:22 am

Horus2 wrote:First of all, scouts are just a unit too. I can't understand the aim of the latest douple-nerf of the footpad and bat, they were good as are. I read something like devs didn't want them to be useful for anything else than occupying villages... is it true? Hey, the recruitment is already about choosing those part of the units which are clearly useful in the present matchup. Weakening footpad is like -1 unit and just makes the strategical part less diverse... no alternative playstyle, no surprises, pay your 3 spearmen, 2 cav and clash with the proper amount of grunts. It makes me unhappy. :(
I want the normal footie and bat back.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the bat and footpad were nerfed because the devs don't want scouts to be useful for anything except occupying villages. As I recall, the bat's village defence was reduced specifically to prevent it from being used to occupy villages, which is exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting. Footpads were nerfed because spamming ulfserkers and footpads was extremely difficult for undead to counter.

Also, while scouts are good for capturing villages because of their speed, most of them aren't very good for occupying villages because they only get 40% defence, where infantry would get 60%. If the devs are trying to make scouts useful only for occupying villages, they're not doing a very good job of it....

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

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Doc Paterson » December 15th, 2010, 12:34 am

Horus2 wrote:I think most of us state with the same confidence that Rebels are underpowered like the loyalists are über.
Are you kidding me? Ug, the ridiculous tangents in this thread are getting really annoying.... :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: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Cackfiend » December 15th, 2010, 3:00 am

Reepurr wrote:
Cackfiend wrote:Glider: 32hp
Scout: 32hps
Wolf: 32hps
Gryphon: 34 hps (and 24 GP!)
Cavalry: 38 hps

Lowering cav to 34 or 36 would be a nice balance step.
Gliders have a marksman ranged attack as well as an impact melee attack. Pretty good against ghosts, actually, and being drakes they have a smattering of minor resists.

ELVISH Scouts: Both melee and ranged, which can be kind of cool. Also note their 60% resists in lots of places where normal horses don't get a bonus, and 1mp in forests...

Wolves: Yeeeah, these are kind of rubbish, but they're quite nice in hills and mountains.

Gryphons: 50% defence everywhere... :D

Cavalrymen: They make up for their health with low pierce resistance.


These are my reasons of thinking this balanced.
- Also bear in mind that units are not balanced against units, but factions are balanced against factions. :)
I did a scout comparison a long time ago when I was trying to get gliders buffed... check it out here (thought its a bit outdated) http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 107#224107

Note the 3rd reply to that thread...
Cuyo Quiz wrote:In before factions not units balanced?.
yea not exactly the first time ive heard this


this thread has turned into everyones 2 cents of what they think should be changed about the game... id like to get it back on track with strictly discussing a cavalry nerf and dwarf poison buff plz :)
"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
Doc Paterson
Drake Cartographer
Posts: 1973
Joined: February 21st, 2005, 9:37 pm
Location: Kazakh
Contact:

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Doc Paterson » December 15th, 2010, 6:29 am

Cackfiend wrote: this thread has turned into everyones 2 cents of what they think should be changed about the game... id like to get it back on track with strictly discussing a cavalry nerf and dwarf poison buff plz :)
I think going for two separate changes in one thread is ambitious. It'd probably be a lot simpler to just focus on the first for now, particularly because that's the one that there's overwhelming agreement with/support for. But hey, it's your thread. ;)

By the way, if you win this case, you'll have to expand your signature.
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
tekelili
Posts: 1038
Joined: August 19th, 2009, 9:28 pm

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by tekelili » December 15th, 2010, 7:22 am

I am totally for increase cavs cost to 18.

I wouldnt change his stats because I think is good for game have so unique unit.

I think is underscosted in a unit to unit comparition and loys are a little overpowered, but that is long and hard to demostrate...

...So I will use an easier support to this cost increment: Just imagine how would be loys played after this cost increase.

IMHO Cavs would be recruited almost as much as right now, just a few less. And kill those superunits will have better recompense for oponent in gold terms. I think both changes will be good for game (especeally last one in orcs vs loys where is so hard kill these guys).

I think knalgans are ok and dont see a reason to buff them vs orcs and ud (only factions with poison).

Just 2 cents from anyone :P
Be aware English is not my first language and I could have explained bad myself using wrong or just invented words.
World Conquest II

Rya
Posts: 350
Joined: September 23rd, 2009, 9:01 am

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Rya » December 15th, 2010, 9:06 am

You can't just compare HP like that. Dodge rate has a much larger effect on the durability of the unit. 19 HP with 70% is as good as 38 HP with 40%.


Also again, I think it absolutely depends on the map which faction is strongest. If there are many hills, Loyalists are very very slow, even the scouts. Dwarfs on the other hand are fast and strong.
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!).
Wesnoth
The developer says "no".

User avatar
Horus2
Posts: 407
Joined: September 26th, 2010, 1:05 pm

Re: Balance Ideas (Unit Changes)

Post by Horus2 » December 15th, 2010, 10:50 am

Atz wrote:I'm not sure where you got the idea that the bat and footpad were nerfed because the devs don't want scouts to be useful for anything except occupying villages. As I recall, the bat's village defence was reduced specifically to prevent it from being used to occupy villages, which is exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting. Footpads were nerfed because spamming ulfserkers and footpads was extremely difficult for undead to counter.

Also, while scouts are good for capturing villages because of their speed, most of them aren't very good for occupying villages because they only get 40% defence, where infantry would get 60%. If the devs are trying to make scouts useful only for occupying villages, they're not doing a very good job of it....
I don't know either yet. So much comment about this case confused me. It's good to know at last what the real purpose was. The efficience of ulf and footpad spam was doubted by some people too but...

@Doc Paterson, @Cackfiend: you are right, i got it, no more tangent comment. The topics name fooled me, like if it was intended to start a revolution. Two question are to deal with now. :)

To cut my long story short, increasing the cav's price sounds the clearest for me, and 18 might be enough. Maybe it's the best tool to prevent the spam a bit while it has the less impact on the actual gameplay we know (and what others know better).

Post Reply