Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

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

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

In your opinion, what change(s) should be made in 1.13 development cycle?

7mp cavalryman & horseman
4
6%
17 gold heavy infantryman
20
28%
outlaw (HODOR) buff
11
15%
19 gold ghost
21
29%
wose nerf (0% cold resistance)
10
14%
dwarf fighter & thunderer lines nerf (0% cold resistance)
6
8%
 
Total votes: 72

User avatar
Krogen
Posts: 199
Joined: January 1st, 2013, 3:43 pm

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by Krogen » December 16th, 2016, 4:28 pm

I haven't seen that replay yet, so my opinion is not too strong here, but in my experience, UD is not the faction you want for banking wars. Sure, Knalgans have an advantage, I don't doubt that, but there is always a better chance against them with offensive play, especially if they use mainly dwarves (opposite may be true vs footpads). However, I have to learn more about this to form a strong opinion.
About the HI: Maybe I could even agree with a 18g HI, but thats not enough in itself. Loyalist is already possibly the strongest faction, so making stronger even a supporter Loy unit is not beneficial for the game in itself. That's why I dont vote for these options, because balance changes should not be discussed one by one, but as a whole. (Few exceptions, for example Adept arcane dmg buff/Wose cold or arcane res nerf, that works in itself.) In themselves, some changes may have a good effect for an issue, but can cause another one too.
Personally, I may change this opinion after some testings, if the HI's cost would be reduced by 1 (by 1 first, as a start), the Spearman ranged damage should be reduced by 1 too, as discussed somewhere earlier. But I could also imagine reduced hp for the spear too, by 1 or 2 points. Spear nerf and HI buff would benefit the Knalgan and the Drake matchup too. Burners would be more effective vs spears, as they take less damage when attacking them. Now a quick and intelligent Burner has 40 hp and at day spear deals 8-1 dmg to it. Ofc I don't completely agree with ppl claiming Loy being too strong vs Drakes, but these changes would make this matchup less spammy, which is a standpoint for balance changes too imo. Spear nerf would make Burner better and HI buff would make it a better option vs Saurians, even when there are Drakes around too. Not to mention that the presence of HIs would also benefit Burners. Atm for the Drakes the real options are the Saurians and the Clashers. I always look at Wesnoth like a game where there's not only one good way to play, but where the players have options. Ofc reduced ranged spearman dmg would help for example Thunderers and Poachers too.
As we are talking about balance ideas, I would like to mention a new idea. I haven't thought about it really, let alone testing it, but my first impression is that it can be possibly a good solution, or reach a good solution starting from it. It's about the Vampire bat problem. Like it or not, bats are weaker with one trait than they should be. I'm saying this as a player who started to play Wesnoth seriously at 1.10, and never really had the 1.8 bat experience. If feral+one trait must be kept, then it can be a solution to buff the bat itself. What I think is that it's dmg could be increased by 1 and remove the strong trait from the pool. That would make every bat feral+strong+one other trait. (Hp can be increased by 1 too, that would make the strong trait 100%.) Also, there would be 33% for quick instead of 25%. Non-strong bats would also fit well to the UD army, as Adepts are the only other units there with traits and they also don't have strong. But it's really just an idea, even I don't know if it's viable at all.
"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of the sheep." - Tywin Lannister

name
Posts: 396
Joined: January 6th, 2008, 3:32 am

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by name » December 16th, 2016, 5:31 pm

Krogen wrote: Personally, I may change this opinion after some testings, if the HI's cost would be reduced by 1 (by 1 first, as a start), the Spearman ranged damage should be reduced by 1 too, as discussed somewhere earlier. But I could also imagine reduced hp for the spear too, by 1 or 2 points. Spear nerf and HI buff would benefit the Knalgan and the Drake matchup too. Burners would be more effective vs spears, as they take less damage when attacking them. Now a quick and intelligent Burner has 40 hp and at day spear deals 8-1 dmg to it. Ofc I don't completely agree with ppl claiming Loy being too strong vs Drakes, but these changes would make this matchup less spammy, which is a standpoint for balance changes too imo. Spear nerf would make Burner better and HI buff would make it a better option vs Saurians, even when there are Drakes around too. Not to mention that the presence of HIs would also benefit Burners. Atm for the Drakes the real options are the Saurians and the Clashers. I always look at Wesnoth like a game where there's not only one good way to play, but where the players have options. Ofc reduced ranged spearman dmg would help for example Thunderers and Poachers too.
Sounds like a really fertile proposal. Diversifying drake versus loyalist strategies would be the best part, actually.
Krogen wrote:If feral+one trait must be kept, then it can be a solution to buff the bat itself.
Is there any reason why it must be kept though? When were bats ever too effective at anything?

User avatar
Oook
Posts: 70
Joined: March 23rd, 2009, 5:51 pm

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by Oook » December 17th, 2016, 4:48 pm

ElderofZion - thanks for the replays :)

I think we can safely say that skelly spam is not effective against a significant number of fighters ;) In those games you often recruited more skellies than Solymos recruited fighters, so I think it's fair to say that skelly spam is as important a factor here as fighter spam. You try pretty much the same strategy in all those games, might be worth at least trying a different mix surely? I understand that your current preference is a response to the ulf + footie approach, but as the knalgan strategy changes to deal with that, so UD strategy must change in response.

Several times you mention 'unkillable fighters' and being at a mobility disadvantage. Given both of these complaints, it's very relevant that you're under recruiting your best damage dealer, as well as two of your more mobile units. People often complain that DAs are too fast these days, and they would certainly outpace mass fighters. You talk about the number of units needed to defend against knalgan push - one advantage of more adepts is you can be more relaxed about giving up vills, it just makes it easier to mug them on the counter. Retreating dwarves should not be able to outpace adepts + ghosts.

Adepts also give some threat to your pushes, so Knalgans will actually have to retreat properly - with just skellies, you're not actually threatening anything. You said that two adepts is enough for a rush - could you explain that? I'm not seeing how that's enough to really threaten, and indeed your play suggests it's not.

As for ghosts - I think they're better than you make out against Knalgans. They beat a non-strong ulf on the flat at any time of day (that's 60% of ulfs, thanks to healthy), and they give UD a much needed quick tank. As for tanking in the day, the main tank should be distance. You don't need to hold a line most of the time, dwarves shouldn't be able to outpace you.

I can't remember ever playing UD against mass fighters, so can't tell you how this exact mix will work in practice, but I'd say it's got a better chance than your skellies.

User avatar
Elder2
Posts: 361
Joined: July 11th, 2015, 2:13 pm

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by Elder2 » December 17th, 2016, 5:37 pm

Oook wrote:ElderofZion - thanks for the replays :)

I think we can safely say that skelly spam is not effective against a significant number of fighters ;) In those games you often recruited more skellies than Solymos recruited fighters, so I think it's fair to say that skelly spam is as important a factor here as fighter spam. You try pretty much the same strategy in all those games, might be worth at least trying a different mix surely? I understand that your current preference is a response to the ulf + footie approach, but as the knalgan strategy changes to deal with that, so UD strategy must change in response.

Several times you mention 'unkillable fighters' and being at a mobility disadvantage. Given both of these complaints, it's very relevant that you're under recruiting your best damage dealer, as well as two of your more mobile units. People often complain that DAs are too fast these days, and they would certainly outpace mass fighters. You talk about the number of units needed to defend against knalgan push - one advantage of more adepts is you can be more relaxed about giving up vills, it just makes it easier to mug them on the counter. Retreating dwarves should not be able to outpace adepts + ghosts.

Adepts also give some threat to your pushes, so Knalgans will actually have to retreat properly - with just skellies, you're not actually threatening anything. You said that two adepts is enough for a rush - could you explain that? I'm not seeing how that's enough to really threaten, and indeed your play suggests it's not.

As for ghosts - I think they're better than you make out against Knalgans. They beat a non-strong ulf on the flat at any time of day (that's 60% of ulfs, thanks to healthy), and they give UD a much needed quick tank. As for tanking in the day, the main tank should be distance. You don't need to hold a line most of the time, dwarves shouldn't be able to outpace you.

I can't remember ever playing UD against mass fighters, so can't tell you how this exact mix will work in practice, but I'd say it's got a better chance than your skellies.
Well, ok, If I get a chance I will try a different strategy with ghosts, I will try to be really agressive, but I doubt it will work. Maybe I will be proven wrong though

I would also show the replay where I played against Horus on fallenstar lake as dwarf vs undead, and despite failing my first attack as dwarf and being against 2 lvl 2s I managed to recover, and repeat the attack with a bigger blob, I had about the same or less units than ud. Then I camped at the villages, didn't reterat at all and ud just couldn't do anything, when Horus attacked I believe in the first turn he killed 1 maybe 2 units or so (or maybe didn't kill any, I don't remember) and I killed like 7 units, this is how attacking mass fighter ends like as ud. Well, sadly, I think I do not have that replay, it wasn't a ladder either so I don't think there is a way to find it besides looking for it for hours on the replay server.


Btw here I will share a second replay that shows how you can outmaneuver and defeat HI as dwarf.

http://wesnoth.gamingladder.info/downlo ... 2017:23:28
Last edited by Elder2 on December 17th, 2016, 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Elder2
Posts: 361
Joined: July 11th, 2015, 2:13 pm

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by Elder2 » December 17th, 2016, 5:40 pm

Krogen wrote:I haven't seen that replay yet, so my opinion is not too strong here, but in my experience, UD is not the faction you want for banking wars. Sure, Knalgans have an advantage, I don't doubt that, but there is always a better chance against them with offensive play, especially if they use mainly dwarves (opposite may be true vs footpads). However, I have to learn more about this to form a strong opinion.
About the HI: Maybe I could even agree with a 18g HI, but thats not enough in itself. Loyalist is already possibly the strongest faction, so making stronger even a supporter Loy unit is not beneficial for the game in itself. That's why I dont vote for these options, because balance changes should not be discussed one by one, but as a whole. (Few exceptions, for example Adept arcane dmg buff/Wose cold or arcane res nerf, that works in itself.) In themselves, some changes may have a good effect for an issue, but can cause another one too.
Personally, I may change this opinion after some testings, if the HI's cost would be reduced by 1 (by 1 first, as a start), the Spearman ranged damage should be reduced by 1 too, as discussed somewhere earlier. But I could also imagine reduced hp for the spear too, by 1 or 2 points. Spear nerf and HI buff would benefit the Knalgan and the Drake matchup too. Burners would be more effective vs spears, as they take less damage when attacking them. Now a quick and intelligent Burner has 40 hp and at day spear deals 8-1 dmg to it. Ofc I don't completely agree with ppl claiming Loy being too strong vs Drakes, but these changes would make this matchup less spammy, which is a standpoint for balance changes too imo. Spear nerf would make Burner better and HI buff would make it a better option vs Saurians, even when there are Drakes around too. Not to mention that the presence of HIs would also benefit Burners. Atm for the Drakes the real options are the Saurians and the Clashers. I always look at Wesnoth like a game where there's not only one good way to play, but where the players have options. Ofc reduced ranged spearman dmg would help for example Thunderers and Poachers too.
As we are talking about balance ideas, I would like to mention a new idea. I haven't thought about it really, let alone testing it, but my first impression is that it can be possibly a good solution, or reach a good solution starting from it. It's about the Vampire bat problem. Like it or not, bats are weaker with one trait than they should be. I'm saying this as a player who started to play Wesnoth seriously at 1.10, and never really had the 1.8 bat experience. If feral+one trait must be kept, then it can be a solution to buff the bat itself. What I think is that it's dmg could be increased by 1 and remove the strong trait from the pool. That would make every bat feral+strong+one other trait. (Hp can be increased by 1 too, that would make the strong trait 100%.) Also, there would be 33% for quick instead of 25%. Non-strong bats would also fit well to the UD army, as Adepts are the only other units there with traits and they also don't have strong. But it's really just an idea, even I don't know if it's viable at all.
Well, knalga is not a faction you want to play late game against xD Maybe except if you are an orc and go gobo spam. So I don't think it is a good matchup to evaluate the validity of ud banking wars in general, I think ud has a good blobbing potential late game and fares well in banking wars, its just that I have't played many games as ud where I played till late game, you do not need that as ud usually. Matchup knalga vs ud is special and doesn't indicate how ud would play in other matchups.

User avatar
Krogen
Posts: 199
Joined: January 1st, 2013, 3:43 pm

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by Krogen » December 18th, 2016, 12:20 am

Yes, I think you know more about that than I do. I'm not a player who often plays banking wars. I get shhit done or die trying.
But I agree with that, it's not a good idea to wait for too long to attack Knalgans. Not with anything.
"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of the sheep." - Tywin Lannister

User avatar
Elder2
Posts: 361
Joined: July 11th, 2015, 2:13 pm

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by Elder2 » December 18th, 2016, 1:43 pm

Another dwarf vs ud replay, now with me being dwarf

http://wesnoth.gamingladder.info/gamede ... %3A42%3A18

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

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by Horus2 » December 20th, 2016, 9:50 am

Hello topic, sorry but i cannot hold promises about balance proposals, and this makes me the saddest of us. I am glad someone is actually showcasing replays, that is the part that needs the most dedication, so credit where credit goes. Cannot read anything now. See you in 2017?

User avatar
Elder2
Posts: 361
Joined: July 11th, 2015, 2:13 pm

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by Elder2 » January 1st, 2017, 12:33 am

As for now I have learned that rush with ghosts works only if the dwarf player manages his units really bad and is out of position, when I first tried it it worked but it was close to not working, the player I played against had his units outpositioned, also I feel like it was feasible only because the map was 125 g start (tombs of kesorak), if its 100 g start I just can't do it and have enough das, ud units are simply too expensive for that. Well when I tried to do sth similiar on a normal map (freelands) I failed miserably and despite having village advantage for some time my units got crushed and the k/d ratio looked really bad for me. I tried it once more on walls of pyrennis but when I snatched 2 villages with skellys and ghost on the opposite side I attacked (my attack failed utterly, despite having 3 da I got unlucky, hit 3/6 the village fighter and all my units died afterwards) the units I took the villages witch died in the span of 2 turns to a steelclad leader, single poacher, like 1 footpad and fighters.

Though I think If I wait for teh second night to attack I can break through and win, so far I did that only in 1 game, I will have to test it later, the good thing is that it seems that because of how expensive fighters are if you can put pressure on the dwarf player he will not recruit ulfs and that will prob save you and let you win. Also the 2 hungarian players I have so far experienced playing mass fighter against my undead don't recruit guards, I think guards would be able to stop my attack, I have to test it more.
Also, right, ghosts work better than I thought, they are not unkillable but can survive more than a skelleton would at night, they are rather good at absorbing damage.

User avatar
draghen
Posts: 43
Joined: June 14th, 2016, 3:46 pm

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by draghen » January 21st, 2017, 5:15 am

Hello, I voted for the 19 g ghost...

Here is my opinion about the 17 g HI discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5FPHZmmN9I

draghen!

User avatar
The_Gnat
Posts: 2074
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by The_Gnat » January 25th, 2017, 2:12 am

draghen wrote:Here is my opinion about the 17 g HI discussion
:lol: Very nice. I do see the similarities, however HI do pose a important role against skeletons (even though they are not so useful against machine guns).

User avatar
Coffee
Developer
Posts: 180
Joined: October 12th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by Coffee » February 5th, 2017, 4:33 am

I've long thought that ghosts should be 19 gold, so voted on this list for this. This would be good against woses in undead vs elf matchup (going towards the idea of the wose nerf proposed here which may be unnecessary then). This would help undead against dwarves be more balanced IMO and leads me to my next related thing bugging me...

Maybe the footpad melee should do 5 and range 4, instead of the other way around as now. This would solve issues with ruffian doing more melee damage and preserve balancing against undead, with 19 gold ghost making the balance work nicely against other dwarf units. It would also fit nicely with the level 2 outlaw attack amounts (less damage with each hit on range 8x2 melee, 6x3 range).

Also, would like to say maybe 18 gold for heavy infantryman would be right, but am not sure. 17 gold seems too good to me in some matchups.

xakaer
Posts: 1
Joined: January 18th, 2017, 6:49 pm

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by xakaer » February 5th, 2017, 10:28 pm

I would like to propose increasing ghoul movement points by one to 6:

* Every faction has a non-scout 6mp unit (without having to rely on quick trait). On most maps this allows efficient village grabbing without the need for a 2nd scout, for instance.

* As most undead units, the ghoul cannot get the quick trait so there is little variation in the movement speed of the undead core army besides adepts.

* Melee poison is probably weaker than ranged poison, at least when used on the offence. This makes the ghoul feel a bit expensive, especially given its limited usefulness in certain matchups. The orcish assassin on the other hand has ranged marksman poison attack, +1mp (+2mp with quick), better evasion (much worse resistances though) and only costs 1g more.

I think the 6mp change would increase the usefulness of ghouls in general but particulary against factions where poison isn't as useful and you might ended up with one ghoul from your initial recruits. Obviously a buff for Undead but I think they need some help anyway.

User avatar
The_Gnat
Posts: 2074
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by The_Gnat » February 11th, 2017, 4:44 am

xakaer wrote:I would like to propose increasing ghoul movement points by one.
I think this is a good idea and will see if I can add it as an option in my next release of the balance mod

Battlecruiser_Venca
Posts: 196
Joined: June 3rd, 2009, 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Balancing changes in 1.13 cycle?

Post by Battlecruiser_Venca » February 13th, 2017, 8:14 pm

I can't find one of things which was discussed some time ago (like last dev cycle?) and it was 15 gp Spearman. Can anoyne confirm that?

Post Reply