Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

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

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
User avatar
Xalzar
Posts: 204
Joined: April 4th, 2009, 10:03 pm
Location: New Saurgrath

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by Xalzar » December 20th, 2018, 3:57 pm

Pentarctagon wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 1:43 am
I'm getting tired of what feels like debating in circles about this though, and it's largely pointless until we have a unit sprite anyway.
This is why it is needed to continue testing one version of the unit - even if we're not all agreeing on the stats - so that any potential problem can be ironed out. The sprite comes at last IMO. In the meantime, the "lore" and "alternative stats" discussions can continue in parallel to testing, and the proposals in here can be used as needed to mold the final form of the unit and the faction as a whole.

Think of it as a "0.1 unit" with a cycle of patches ready in case balance problems arise.
So if you want, let's try this more "landfriendly" Naga and let's see if the balance opinions of the Gnat
The_Gnat wrote:
December 19th, 2018, 9:47 pm
After some testing (particularly on more water based maps) I have found the Naga as a OP unit and therefore believe 2 strikes is a must have.
In order for the naga not to throw off the balance, particularly through its ability to strike from shallow water and 70% defence with a near definite chance of poisoning the enemy.
This is then further combines with a notable ranged attack (better than most mixed fighters) to create a multi purpose unit that crushes everyone, is hard to kill, and dominates the water because of its poison attacks on melee. In order to get this unit of a water village it takes at least 3 other water units all whom receive significant damage. Realistically it is better to just ignore the naga unless you have a ranged unit to attack it with.
I believe though that slightly worse on land would be better. Currently the naga could camp in the forest or Hills and poison enemies while still receiving 50% defence.
Those stats would make it so effective on land it could work as a regular land unit while being incredible in the water.
I believe we need to either get rid of the poison or significantly reduce the land utilisation.
are confirmed. I have not tested it but I understand the reasoning and I can imagine the Naga effectively replacing other land units as the main unit of the faction if it is not terribly overpriced.

This last section is my personal rant, please ignore it since it's based only on my impressions. I need to record my thoughts.
{My 2 cents about the movement, defence and resistance stats, since I thought more about the Naga.
I think the unit should be similar to the OG Naga, with pinpoint differences if necessary; if it changes too much we may as well invent a new species. Also, the faction needs only water control; the faction has already land control. So why adding bonuses to movement and defense on land? Because on water-less maps the faction loses its poisoner? Then maybe poison on a water unit is a bad idea; if you see the other factions their water units have only the function of water control, and have no important other abilities.

P.S.: remember we always have a Jinn if we want.}

name
Posts: 371
Joined: January 6th, 2008, 3:32 am

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by name » December 20th, 2018, 5:50 pm

The_Gnat wrote:
December 19th, 2018, 9:47 pm
after some testing (particularly on more water based maps) I have found the Naga as a OP unit and therefore believe 2 strikes is a must have.
Okay, taking your testing results into account here is my adjusted naga proposal:

Code: Select all

name= Naga Ringcaster
cost=15
xp=33
hp=27
moves=7
alignment=liminal

terrain defenses,movement costs:
    castle=50%,2
    cave=40%,2
    coastal reef=70%,2
    deep water=50%,1
    flat=30%,2
    forest=50%,2
    frozen=20%,2
    fungus=60%,2
    hills=40%,3
    mountains=40%,5
    sand=60%,1
    shallow water=60%,1
    swamp=60%,1
    village=40%,1

attack1:
    name= fangs
    range=melee
    type=pierce
    damage=2
    strikes=2
    specials=poison

attack2:
    name= chakram
    range=ranged
    type=blade
    damage=3
    strikes=4
It now has only two poison strikes and their base damage is minimal. It also now only has 4 strikes for the chakram attack for a total of 12 damage. It is still stronger than the fighter on forest, fungus and sand but not any better on "wet" tiles so that it is not impossible to kill with other water control units.

If this is still overpowered, the hit points can be adjusted down as low as 24 and cost adjusted up as high as 17 and its advantages over the naga fighter in forest can be removed.
The_Gnat wrote:
December 19th, 2018, 9:47 pm
I wouldn't support this because the Herbalist is already arguably the best unit in DF in nearly every deployment. The addition of anything further would easily make it OP.
It is important to remember the game is balanced faction versus faction rather than unit versus unit. We can and have used unit versus unit comparisons as a starting point to gauge if a unit is approximately too strong or weak for its intended role. But ultimately it is all about the faction balance.

In this case, to give the dunefolk poison on land, the herbalist is actually the best option to prevent them from becoming overpowered by it, precisely because he is already so useful to them already. Giving him poison will likely mean his gold cost will go up to counter balance. And then, his high utility as a healer, his already low survivability and his higher cost will mean he should be deployed as a poisoner only very judiciously.

Giving poison to a cheaper, faster or more durable unit instead would allow the DF to deploy poison more often and potentially make them too strong.
Celtic_Minstrel wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 1:07 am
(And for the record, I still support poison on the Herbalist/Alchemist.)
I agree, just as long as he gets poison on a ranged attack and loses his melee attack, along with a small cost increase. This way, the knalgans (who are generally most vulnerable to poison) can hard counter him with the berserker.

On a similar note, in consideration of the balance issue raised by Pentarctagon, I am reducing the Jinni's melee strikes by one, so that it will now do magical 2x5 fire. This is to make it just a bit more counterable by knalgan and northerner melee units to start off with. If it makes the DF too strong in these two match ups still, then it will receive negative resistances to blade and impact and/or a loss of the magical special on its melee.
Pentarctagon wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 1:43 am
I'm getting tired of what feels like debating in circles about this though, and it's largely pointless until we have a unit sprite anyway.
Regarding sprites, it really is the opposite way around. You should test with a placeholder sprite until you have a keeper in terms of both balance and lore. Only when you have those aspects at a mature state should you request a sprite. Otherwise you waste a lot of the sprite maker's time redrafting a unit that keeps changing as balance issue surface through testing. Similarly, your ability to make adjustments is reduced by the desire to reuse a certain sprite.

Each process (the balancing and the art) will take many iterations and hours to get right so you need to keep them separate so the complexities of one does not compound those of the other.
Xalzar wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 3:57 pm
{My 2 cents about the movement, defence and resistance stats, since I thought more about the Naga.
I think the unit should be similar to the OG Naga, with pinpoint differences if necessary; if it changes too much we may as well invent a new species. Also, the faction needs only water control; the faction has already land control. So why adding bonuses to movement and defense on land? Because on water-less maps the faction loses its poisoner? Then maybe poison on a water unit is a bad idea; if you see the other factions their water units have only the function of water control, and have no important other abilities.

P.S.: remember we always have a Jinn if we want.}
I agree.

Caladbolg
Posts: 160
Joined: January 1st, 2016, 4:40 pm
Location: Hopelessly trapped within the Submachine

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by Caladbolg » December 20th, 2018, 9:21 pm

I'm getting a bit lost. name, what are resistances in your proposal? Standard naga or as in previous proposals?
The_Gnat wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 3:25 am
Currently I think the best proposal is probably name's defences and movement costs combined with Pentaractogon's previous stay suggestions.
Can we all please comment on this and then we can decide 2 strikes or 3 based upon how balanced we think the unit is.
That would be Pentarctagon's suggestion #1 from page 17, right? With the latest def and mp costs by name, it would look like this:

Code: Select all

name=Naga Poisoner
hp=28
xp=35
cost=17
moves=7
alignment=liminal

attack1:
    name=spear
    specials=poison
    type=pierce
    strikes=2
    damage=6

attack2:
    name=bow
    type=pierce
    strikes=3
    damage=3

resistances:
    arcane=0%
    blade=-10%
    cold=0%
    fire=0%
    impact=-20%
    pierce=-10%

terrain defenses,movement costs:
    castle=50%,2
    cave=40%,2
    coastal reef=70%,2
    deep water=50%,1
    flat=30%,2
    forest=50%,2
    frozen=20%,2
    fungus=60%,2
    hills=40%,3
    mountains=40%,5
    sand=60%,1
    shallow water=60%,1
    swamp=60%,1
    village=40%,1
Between this, and latest name's proposal: I prefer 3x4 ranged chakram. With that, melee dmg in this would be too high. Otoh, I think name's 2x2 melee is too low, and it'd make naga far too weak and unreliable in melee vs gryphons, mer fighters and flying drakes. Ghosts would also be able to crush them easily.

Maybe lower fungus def as it doesn't make much sense that they have as good def there as on sand. (I wouldn't be against dropping sand def to 50% tbh as with 60% it's double that of flat, which is strange... but I can live with it.)

As for resistances, I'd increase them to those of standard naga because we've lowered defenses from the original proposal. I think it might be for the best to keep them neutral for now and adjust as necessary later on.

With all of that, my proposal is:

Code: Select all

name=Naga Poisoner
hp=28
xp=35
cost=17
moves=7
alignment=liminal

attack1:
    name=spear
    specials=poison
    type=pierce
    strikes=2
    damage=4

attack2:
    name=chakram
    type=blade
    strikes=4
    damage=3

resistances: 0% across the board

terrain defenses,movement costs: as above, only fungus def 50% instead of 60%
(Compared to suggestion above in the post: melee dmg -2, ranged is now blade with +1 strike, fungus def -10%, and res all set to 0%).
(Compared to name's suggestion: melee dmg +2, hp+1, fungus def -10%, xp+2, cost +2, and res all set to 0%).

Also, for the record, I'm against giving Herbalist poison melee. I think changing their melee from impact would throw a wrench in balance vs undead. Other units competent against skeletons are Piercers and Burners, but their cost is more prohibitive (Burners being more accessible, but the idea of changing their melee to non-fire has been thrown around, which would lessen their utility vs undead). The hypothetical Jinn could fill that spot if cheap, but when we discussed, it was mentioned it'd be quite expensive. So non-impact poison melee on Herbalists would mess balance a fair bit, and balancing it would rely on a lot of ifs around changes to other units. We're already debating just a single naga unit for several pages and days; if we change Herbalist, DF will go nowhere for another couple of years. If we want DF to have poison, naga is the way to go.

(Theoretically, you could give Herbalist poison while retaining impact melee, but then I'd wonder how you'd explain it. That aside, the unit is already overloaded. It already has heal+8 on lvl1, making it the best lvl 1 healer, and is great against undead in melee, while able to hold its own against other units as well. Changes such as giving it ranged poison while lowering or completely removing melee might have some merit, but will ultimately lead to unending discussions. I really like the current Herbalist so I'd most likely be against changing him even if not for these issues.)

User avatar
Celtic_Minstrel
Developer
Posts: 1290
Joined: August 3rd, 2012, 11:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by Celtic_Minstrel » December 21st, 2018, 12:55 am

I don't think I like the idea of removing the herbalist's melee attack... giving them a ranged poison seems the most logical, if they're going to have poison at all.
Author of The Black Cross of Aleron campaign and Default++ era.
Maintainer of Steelhive.

User avatar
The_Gnat
Posts: 1822
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by The_Gnat » December 21st, 2018, 1:40 am

Celtic_Minstrel wrote:
December 21st, 2018, 12:55 am
I don't think I like the idea of removing the herbalist's melee attack... giving them a ranged poison seems the most logical, if they're going to have poison at all.
I agree. :) I am entirely against removing the Herbalists melee attack. But I am also against giving the herbalist poison. ;)
name wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 5:50 pm
Giving him poison will likely mean his gold cost will go up to counter balance
As I see it the herbalist plays a key role in the faction as a healer. Suggesting that the most powerful healer of the game should become a poisoner as well is a bit of a stretch and I would much rather see the inclusion of other units in the faction which are currently under utilized.

Furthermore I believe any price increase for the healer (which would be required if it was given poison) would make it less functional as a healer. If it is unable to be afforded the total number of Herbalists becomes less and the faction relies more on the other units, which as previously mentioned are under powered.

Basically a single great unit is not an ideal cure-all for the faction. I also believe the herbalist included as a key impact unit allows the faction to successfully combat the undead. I believe that removing the Burner's melee fire would significantly worsen the units potential against the undead and would be entirely opposed to removing the Herbalists impact melee.

I personally do not believe that another unit with poison is even necessary at this time (with the Naga and Jinni still in the works) but would be opposed interesting in considering it after the Naga discussion. Furthermore while I recognize the value of poison I do not believe it needs to be given to any of the current units that are in the DF faction. If we consider the value of a magical Jinni vs. a DF rogue type unit that would poison, I believe overall the Jinni would improve the faction in the magical weak matchups (Undead and potentially Drakes) and the poisoner would improve the faction versus the living factions (Loyalists in particular). I can definitely see the role of a dedicated poisoning unit. But I believe that is a discussion for another time. :)
name wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 5:50 pm
It is important to remember the game is balanced faction versus faction rather than unit versus unit
I do indeed remember that and that is, in fact, why I suggest not improving the Herbalist. The faction 'as a whole' must be balanced against every other faction and the best way to do that is not by creating a single unit which dominates but instead by increasing the potential of all the units in the faction.

By doing so we also increase potential deployments and strategies and allow for more possibilities in game play. If the Herbalist or Jinni or any unit is so good that they carry the faction in certain matchups it is uninteresting and I like to look into alternate ways to balance the faction in its entirety.
name wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 5:50 pm
Giving poison to a cheaper, faster or more durable unit instead would allow the DF to deploy poison more often and potentially make them too strong.
You make a valid point. Which is why I do not believe more poison should be added until the Naga is implemented and tested
name wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 5:50 pm
Regarding sprites, it really is the opposite way around.
I agree.
Xalzar wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 3:57 pm
Think of it as a "0.1 unit" with a cycle of patches ready in case balance problems arise.
I definitely agree, but do believe some level of agreement should be reached.
Caladbolg wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 9:21 pm
With all of that, my proposal is:
:D I support this proposal. I believe it solves the land issue. It is not OP while also not too under powered. It is slightly higher price too compensate for its ability.
name wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 5:50 pm
On a similar note, in consideration of the balance issue raised by Pentarctagon, I am reducing the Jinni's melee strikes by one, so that it will now do magical 2x5 fire
I agree. This will make the Jinni more balanced.

name
Posts: 371
Joined: January 6th, 2008, 3:32 am

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by name » December 21st, 2018, 5:18 pm

Caladbolg wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 9:21 pm
I'm getting a bit lost. name, what are resistances in your proposal? Standard naga or as in previous proposals?
Standard Naga Fighter resistances. That is, zero resistances across the board. Any statistic not mentioned is zero, basically.
Caladbolg wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 9:21 pm
Otoh, I think name's 2x2 melee is too low, and it'd make naga far too weak and unreliable in melee vs gryphons, mer fighters and flying drakes.
That is likely severely underestimating the power of poison.

With 2x2 poison melee, one successful hit will do 10 damage over a round (two hits will do 12). Within the same round, on its own turn, the naga can unleash its ranged chakram attack for 12 damage (which limits counter attack risk in most water match ups), for a total of 24 damage. The merman fighter can only do 18 damage per round against a ranged unit like this. And being slower by one movement point, he cannot escape or chase a naga, all the while the poison is damaging him wherever he goes unless it is immediately to a village (which water units may have a harder time reaching on average, particularly when in a channel environment).

For further comparison the merman hunter's melee only does 4 damage per round on a successful hit or 8 damage for two. No lingering effects.

We can try the naga's melee damage at 3x2, but even that is quite likely too much. Over a round that will be 11 damage on the first hit and 14 on a second hit. That is two less than the maximum melee damage of a naga fighter over a round (since it, like the merman fighter, will have no counter damage to the ranged attack). When it is the new naga unit's turn, it will launch the chakram attack for a base damage potential of 3x2 + 3x4 = 18, same as merman fighter, but with poison, so 26 total damage potential.
Caladbolg wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 9:21 pm
Ghosts would also be able to crush them easily.
This will be an issue with any poison water specialist. Poison is quite powerful against everyone except the ghost. This is where the jinni will have to come in.
Caladbolg wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 9:21 pm
cost=17
As a water specialist, the cost could go as high as 16, but better if it is 15. Water specialists tend to be cheap and that is for good reason. If the fight moves back on land their contribution is very limited (and if not, you no longer have a specialist like a naga) so the investment cannot be too much. A lot of what you are buying is zone of control on water, but with more cost comes less units and thus less control. That is why, even at 16, it would be the most expensive water specialist.
Caladbolg wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 9:21 pm
Also, for the record, I'm against giving Herbalist poison melee. I think changing their melee from impact would throw a wrench in balance vs undead.
The thrown beaker of poison would use impact for its base damage.

But does and should the faction really depend so thoroughly on an advanced healer, rather than a melee soldier, to club undead units into submission? That sounds counterintuitive, to say the least.
Caladbolg wrote:
December 20th, 2018, 9:21 pm
Other units competent against skeletons are Piercers and Burners, but their cost is more prohibitive (Burners being more accessible, but the idea of changing their melee to non-fire has been thrown around, which would lessen their utility vs undead). The hypothetical Jinn could fill that spot if cheap, but when we discussed, it was mentioned it'd be quite expensive.
The burner should and likely would end up with a mace for melee. So its role against undead would remain.

The jinni is so expensive partially to not be too strong against undead. It could be 22 gold and still make perfect sense, lore wise. The price and impact damage output of the piercer and burner are also held up artificially high if you rely on a doctor for melee. It would be especially simple to reduce the price of the burner, since it's primary purpose is against the undead, and so the consequences for other match ups is limited.

Caladbolg
Posts: 160
Joined: January 1st, 2016, 4:40 pm
Location: Hopelessly trapped within the Submachine

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by Caladbolg » December 21st, 2018, 8:51 pm

name wrote:
December 21st, 2018, 5:18 pm
That is likely severely underestimating the power of poison.
With 2x2 poison melee, one successful hit will do 10 damage over a round (two hits will do 12). Within the same round, on its own turn, the naga can unleash its ranged chakram attack for 12 damage (which limits counter attack risk in most water match ups), for a total of 24 damage.
* provided all attacks hit.
With 2 strikes, there's still a considerable chance of failing to inflict any damage at all. With lower hp than mer units, naga is easier to kill, and with it's higher cost, it is also a greater loss to lose it than it would be to lose a merman. All else aside, the difference between 2x2 poison and 4x2 poison is 4 damage which I think is ok considering the higher cost. (The only thing I'd change in my suggestion is hp -1/-2 so it'd be the same as yours or lower.)

And this is all assuming a 1v1 in water far away from other units. Sure, a mer hunter or fighter could be in trouble if he went in completely alone against this naga, but why would anyone do that? Most of the water on most maps can be accessed by land units as well.
name wrote:
December 21st, 2018, 5:18 pm
As a water specialist, the cost could go as high as 16, but better if it is 15.
Naga is a water specialist with poison, higher mp and better land movement than other comparable units. It should be the most expensive water unit, at least by 1. I think even in your proposal naga is underpriced.

Anyways, the differences between our proposals are so small that arguing about them is a matter of taste. Ultimately, it's a question of more cost & melee vs. less cost & melee, and I favor the former considering that Jinn would provide fair water control, giving the player more options. If naga were cheaper, access to Jinn (albeit limited due to cost) would give DF versatility on water matched only by drakes.

These nuances can't be solved by theoretical discussions. I think we've reached a point where these proposals should be tested. The final proposals would be mine (with -1/-2 hp), yours, and maybe that mix between Penta's and yours that I posted a while ago. If yours turns out to work better, then I have no complaints. Even if people doing the balancing only choose to test one of these, I trust that they'd pick the one that is most balanced based on their experience. It is entirely possible I'm not experienced enough in playing DF to properly judge the proposals and that mine would indeed be too op.
name wrote:
December 21st, 2018, 5:18 pm
But does and should the faction really depend so thoroughly on an advanced healer, rather than a melee soldier, to club undead units into submission?
I don't see why not. It works well and is interesting thematically.
In any case, my point was that the question of whether or not naga should have poison should not depend on whether or not Herbalists should have poison (and by proxy, whether or not we should also make all these other changes to other units). It shifts the discussion from an attack special on a single unit we've mostly agreed upon, to one of changing/adding several attacks to various units and adding a unit with stats we've still not settled on. In other words, from an already lengthy but solvable discussion, to one that won't yield any solutions in the foreseeable future.

User avatar
The_Gnat
Posts: 1822
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by The_Gnat » December 22nd, 2018, 1:57 am

Caladbolg wrote:
December 21st, 2018, 8:51 pm
In other words, from an already lengthy but solvable discussion, to one that won't yield any solutions in the foreseeable future
I agree fully. I believe it is time for implementing and testing.

User avatar
Pentarctagon
Forum Administrator
Posts: 3656
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Earth (occasionally)

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by Pentarctagon » January 1st, 2019, 7:06 am

Is this discussion on-going elsewhere still, or has it quieted down entirely?
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code

User avatar
Celtic_Minstrel
Developer
Posts: 1290
Joined: August 3rd, 2012, 11:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by Celtic_Minstrel » January 2nd, 2019, 1:29 am

If the discussion is finished I would suggest finding some placeholder sprites (maybe borrow/tweak the Naga Guardian line sprites for the new naga?) and implementing these proposed units.
Author of The Black Cross of Aleron campaign and Default++ era.
Maintainer of Steelhive.

User avatar
The_Gnat
Posts: 1822
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by The_Gnat » January 2nd, 2019, 5:42 am

I feel like the discussion reached a relative conclusion on the naga and that the Jinni still needs more discussion.

Also worth noting: I have heard from a variety of people on discord proposing a dust devil instead of a Jinni be implemented. That conversation is still very much open for discussion but I believe the consensus is that another unit needs to be added.

Also important, the discord DF group is working on a wholistic set of proposals for the entire faction to achieve greater balance. They have about 8 proposed changes which are very good ideas and soon I believe they are going to present them and the reasons for their proposed changes.

User avatar
The_Gnat
Posts: 1822
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by The_Gnat » January 7th, 2019, 8:41 pm

I don't know what happened to everyone ;) but after further tests I thought to say that the Dunefolk really struggle in the Drake match up because of a lack of any strong range unit.

The naga fits in very well and I think is well bal but regardless the DF are crushed in the Drake match up. The soldier is only really good against the saurian and deals less damage then most drakes and is vulnerable to their ranged attacks. The Burner is mostly useless which severely limits the faction. The rider is the only other real ranged unit and since it is a scout it hardly fills the role of Archer sufficiently. The Rover works well as 'throw lots of them at the enemy' but you can't win battles like that. The two key units are the Herbalist, because mostly fighting at day the drakes inflict heavy damage, and the piercer who is a strong combatant to the Burner and most of the drakes.

Okay so why do we care? Firstly because the fire Jinni is unfortunately going to be ineffective at solving this matching problem. And secondly because it should be noted that while the buffs we have instituted have helped, particularly as far as village grabbing goes because of the rider buff and naga, overall the faction still needs to be able to combat the drakes better.

The main reason I mention this is because after further thought I am questioning the value of the fire Jinni being added.

User avatar
skeptical_troll
Posts: 419
Joined: August 31st, 2015, 11:06 pm

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by skeptical_troll » January 7th, 2019, 9:53 pm

The_Gnat wrote:
January 7th, 2019, 8:41 pm
I don't know what happened to everyone ;) but after further tests I thought to say that the Dunefolk really struggle in the Drake match up because of a lack of any strong range unit.
random thought:
Have people ever discussed giving them some resistance to fire? It's kind of a stretch lorewise (probably to be solved with some heat-resistant material they discovered), but would it affect any of the other match-ups? Loyalists have better weapons than mages against them, I don't know about rebels, who are already a bit in troubles with DF.

Also, if the jinn or the dust devil had strong fire resistances but different damage type than fire, they could be a counter to burners.

User avatar
The_Gnat
Posts: 1822
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by The_Gnat » January 7th, 2019, 11:08 pm

skeptical_troll wrote:
January 7th, 2019, 9:53 pm
discussed giving them some resistance to fire
I agree that would be good, but if course it would need some testing to ensure it is balanced. Can anyone see any issues with giving DF a 10% resistance to fire and explaining it as a desert heat resistance?
skeptical_troll wrote:
January 7th, 2019, 9:53 pm
Also, if the jinn or the dust devil had strong fire resistances but different damage type than fire, they could be a counter to burners.
That is a good idea. If a Jinni or Burner are added then it could be resistant enough to combat the the drakes.

User avatar
Celtic_Minstrel
Developer
Posts: 1290
Joined: August 3rd, 2012, 11:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk balancing rework ideas - discussion.

Post by Celtic_Minstrel » January 8th, 2019, 5:23 am

Just speaking in terms of lore, a dust devil would probably have a pierce attack (from sand blown by gale force winds). It feels really underwhelming as a core unit though; I'd see it as more of an uncommon monster.

I think I could accept a really low (no more than 10%) fire resistance on the lawful units, explained by just being used to the heat. It's a stretch, to be sure, but it's one that's barely within tolerable limits.

If you wanted to explain a fire resistance (in particular, something more than 10%) in terms of their armour, I think you'd need to say they use some really outlandish material for their armour. Some ideas:
  • Stone or glass or ceramics — if that's even possible! I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to make anything like plate armour from stone, glass, or ceramics (or even from wood) but some kind of scale armour might be doable?
  • Some made-up non-flammable, non-metallic material. This is basically the last resort, though.
  • Chitin, maybe harvested from giant sand-worms! But I'm not sure if chitin is flame-retardant. (That said, my image of Wesnoth sand-worms is based on the Mongolian death worm, which would have a lightning attack, so it might work.)
  • Wyvern hide (and give wyverns flame-resistance too, to support this) ... but this only works for leather armour, which I think most of the Dunefolk don't use.
Author of The Black Cross of Aleron campaign and Default++ era.
Maintainer of Steelhive.

Post Reply