[mainline] Loyalist Bowman

[Mabuse]

1 more damage wont make him super op like he was in the 1.2 days...

well, since the bowman was not overused in 1.2 and as well not in 1.4 (the 1.4 bowman has the same stats as the 1.2 bowman) i wouldnt call him OP.
the stats changed in 1.6


1.2/1.4 bowman: 33HP, 6-2 melee, 6-3 ranged, cost 15
1.6/1.8 bowman: 33HP, 4-2 melee, 6-3 ranged, cost 14

(all other stats remained same)

so what changed is that he got -2 melee damage but also cost -1 gold

and they didnt got "nerfed" because they were OP in any way, instead, the purpose of the change was to make them more useful, due to a cheaper price. and also to get away from the "allround-unit"-feeling, to more a "real archer with weak melee" feeling

the demise of the bowman is simply that spearman is more effective
(spearman also can make MUCH better use from the STRONG trait)


but i also agree to give loy bowman +1 melee dam.
because that would put him on par with the spearman damage-wise (ok, a slight bit better).
not that i would use it because of that though

the spearman still has more HP and benefits a lot more from strong-trait ...

[Kolbur]

I don't really see a valid reason here why this should be done.
As already said units are not balanced against units but factions against factions. Do you think there is a match up where loyalists need to be improved? I don't.
They already are a faction full of very efficient units, why should one of the few less efficient units be improved?
The_Black_Sword pointed out that the bowman gets it's most use in the match up vs Drakes. Improving the bowman would improve the chances of loyalists there. Does anyone really think loyalists are the underdogs in this match up? I'm having the opposite opinion at least. Improving the melee bowman damage wouldn't even be a minor buff vs saurians because bringing him up to 5-2 melee would enable them to exploit the 10% blade weakness in more situations (strong bowman at neutral tod, non-strong at day) resulting in +2 damage.
Also the human bowman has the most hp of all archers (only +1 to orc archer and poacher but it can make the difference ).

So if you really want this change you should better bring some good faction balance arguments.

[TheCripple]

Factions:
...
Loyal- mirror
...
So, the only faction matchup that actually matters is vs drakes. Against everyone else, particularly orcs, the bowman might become a bit more useful which will add more variety, which is a good thing IMO..

Mirrors are entirely relevant. The bowman is useful in the mirror, and that is a valid point of data - after all, just because one is opposing a mirror faction doesn't mean that all units are relevant. To use an extreme example, a 1-1 1 hp 1 move 20 gold unit is underpowered if attached to any faction. It remains pointless and underpowered in a mirror.

[Cackfiend]

I don't really see a valid reason here why this should be done.
As already said units are not balanced against units but factions against factions. Do you think there is a match up where loyalists need to be improved? I don't.

They already are a faction full of very efficient units, why should one of the few less efficient units be improved?
The_Black_Sword pointed out that the bowman gets it's most use in the match up vs Drakes. Improving the bowman would improve the chances of loyalists there. Does anyone really think loyalists are the underdogs in this match up? I'm having the opposite opinion at least. Improving the melee bowman damage wouldn't even be a minor buff vs saurians because bringing him up to 5-2 melee would enable them to exploit the 10% blade weakness in more situations (strong bowman at neutral tod, non-strong at day) resulting in +2 damage.
Also the human bowman has the most hp of all archers (only +1 to orc archer and poacher but it can make the difference ).

So if you really want this change you should better bring some good faction balance arguments.

This is an extremely good post

. Buffing the Loyalist archers melee dmg by +1 would indeed mostly help in matches where they already are favored (theyre only not favored vs UD). BUT, just the fact there would be more archers on the field and less of the other OP units it might actually even make those matchups more balanced.

The fact still is that the loyalist bowman is incredibly underused and could use a little love

[Cackfiend]

BTW, why did a mod move this thread to the Ideas forum when it was originally posted in the Multiplayer forum?

Multiplayer Development

This forum is for discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Ideas

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game in here. But, before you post, read this!

as you can tell by the descriptions this thread clearly belonged in the multiplayer forum

also the same thing happen with the "weaken the op lieutenant" thread

move them back to multiplayer where they were started and where they belong.... and where they might actually get some attention =x

[Elvish_Hunter]

Done.

[Madlok]

Wesnoth has 6 factions, each has 6-8 units. So it's less than one unit per faction. So it may happen that some units are usefull only versus one faction. And Loyalists have 8 units.

[Rigor]

another idea to make this unit more useful is to give him more base MP: i remember players outmaneuvering other with footies and poachers, why should loys lag behind since they have no ton of fighting equipment? besides, +1 mp would make it possible to reach retreating units too, which is also important in a fight, completely without changing their dmg attributes.

[Kolbur]

I don't really see a valid reason here why this should be done.
As already said units are not balanced against units but factions against factions. Do you think there is a match up where loyalists need to be improved? I don't.

They already are a faction full of very efficient units, why should one of the few less efficient units be improved?
The_Black_Sword pointed out that the bowman gets it's most use in the match up vs Drakes. Improving the bowman would improve the chances of loyalists there. Does anyone really think loyalists are the underdogs in this match up? I'm having the opposite opinion at least. Improving the melee bowman damage wouldn't even be a minor buff vs saurians because bringing him up to 5-2 melee would enable them to exploit the 10% blade weakness in more situations (strong bowman at neutral tod, non-strong at day) resulting in +2 damage.
Also the human bowman has the most hp of all archers (only +1 to orc archer and poacher but it can make the difference ).

So if you really want this change you should better bring some good faction balance arguments.

This is an extremely good post

. Buffing the Loyalist archers melee dmg by +1 would indeed mostly help in matches where they already are favored (theyre only not favored vs UD). BUT, just the fact there would be more archers on the field and less of the other OP units it might actually even make those matchups more balanced.

The fact still is that the loyalist bowman is incredibly underused and could use a little love

Uhm, but you argued against your own suggestion here.

"Buffing the Loyalist archers melee dmg by +1 would indeed mostly help in matches where they already are favored (theyre only not favored vs UD). BUT, just the fact there would be more archers on the field and less of the other OP units it might actually even make those matchups more balanced."

This translate into "My proposal will worsen the balance of loyalist match ups but because the players are mostly not very clever they will interprete this change for their gameplay so poorly that it will actually improve the balance." to me. Which is a ridiculous claim.

[Cackfiend]

well it might sound ridiculous but it really isnt

the fact is the archer is the most underused unit of the loyalist


you really dont think encouraging more archers on the field vs orcs, elves, and dwarves is a good thing rather than 6 spearman and 5 cavs?

the only time you ever see more than 1 archer in an army is vs drakes that make lots of clashers....


i mean, to say that +1 melee dmg for the archer would "worsen the balance" is a bit extreme imo. I think it would just make the fights a little more diverse. If players were more ok with the idea of making an archer or two in a game, then it would for example give orcs a unit to still attack at day time with its grunts/trolls.


Id just really like to see more archers out there. Sick of seeing loyalist armies that are pure melee because spearman and cavs are just so epicly good for how much they cost

[Madlok]

In other words this will make Loyalists faction more idiot proof vs Drakes. Now Bowmans are good vs Clashers but poor vs Saurians.
Or another example: good vs Elvish Scout, poor vs Wose.

[grrr]

I agree with Cackfiend that cavs and spears are overused in Loyalist armies, because of their efficiency. But I also agree with Kolbur; you won't necessarily fix that in a balanced way by making the bowman better. As it stands, the most powerful loyalist army, in most situations, is a couple of cavs, 50% spears, and rest filled up with mages. It's been like that for the last couple of years.

However, here's what I would try out: Make the bowman's 6-3 attack a 9-2 attack.
Reasoning: Mage, spear, cav all have a primary *-3 attack. The role of spear and cav are diverse enough that this fact might not matter, but a mage could be considered a specialized bowman, most of the time. They are often used for the exact same roles, too. So by playing with the amount of strikes of its primary attack, we could make the bowman stand out against the mage in certain situations. Perhaps the bowman would be more often used as a shock trooper, opening the assault: If the two strikes connect, that's already 22dmg at day! So a very high potential to do max damage, but even less efficient as a finisher. I think that would finally make bowman different enough from mage, so it could be used more often.

If this really increases in more usage of the bowman, the next step then would be nerf spear or cav.

The way I see the whole situation with loyalists: It'll be hard to improve balance if only one unit is changed. One needs to have plan that considers multiple balance changes at one.

[Temuchin Khan]

There is something very odd about this thread. Those who want the Bowman's melee attack to be improved are assuming that it is desirable for all the units in a faction to be used with equal frequency. They are assuming that there is something undesirable about having a situation in which a few Cavalrymen, a bunch of spearmen, and a bunch of mages is an effective loyalist army. In other words,they are assuming that it is undesirable for the Bowman to be a specialist.

But why? Other units are specialists, why not the Bowman?

In other words, this entire thread is based on an unjustified and perhaps unjustifiable assumption. And unless someone can provide a justification for that assumption, this whole thread would seem to be pointless.

[Cackfiend]

There is something very odd about this thread. Those who want the Bowman's melee attack to be improved are assuming that it is desirable for all the units in a faction to be used with equal frequency. They are assuming that there is something undesirable about having a situation in which a few Cavalrymen, a bunch of spearmen, and a bunch of mages is an effective loyalist army. In other words,they are assuming that it is undesirable for the Bowman to be a specialist.

But why? Other units are specialists, why not the Bowman?

In other words, this entire thread is based on an unjustified and perhaps unjustifiable assumption. And unless someone can provide a justification for that assumption, this whole thread would seem to be pointless.

but the Bowman isnt a specialist =/

[Temuchin Khan]

There is something very odd about this thread. Those who want the Bowman's melee attack to be improved are assuming that it is desirable for all the units in a faction to be used with equal frequency. They are assuming that there is something undesirable about having a situation in which a few Cavalrymen, a bunch of spearmen, and a bunch of mages is an effective loyalist army. In other words,they are assuming that it is undesirable for the Bowman to be a specialist.

But why? Other units are specialists, why not the Bowman?

In other words, this entire thread is based on an unjustified and perhaps unjustifiable assumption. And unless someone can provide a justification for that assumption, this whole thread would seem to be pointless.

but the Bowman isnt a specialist =/

What I mean is that there are other units that are only useful in certain situations and not others. You clearly don't want the Bowman to be one of those units, but why shouldn't he be?