Imperial Era

It's not easy creating an entire faction or era. Post your work and collaborate in this forum.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
User avatar
AxalaraFlame
Posts: 690
Joined: December 4th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Location: Pasadina, Caltech

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by AxalaraFlame » November 28th, 2012, 12:34 am

Sorry for replying late, but I have lost my oringinal posts.

Anyway:
Temuchin. About the sun glare thing with thunderers, you have a point, but I'm not convinced that it's worth changing it for the match-up with one unusual unit, given that with one large ranged attacks the thunderers are somewhat odd. I'll have a look at it, of course, but no-one goes up against thunderers in a ranged fight.
That said, Cavernei changes to make them different to the mainline are well overdue. There were some vague plans over in the old forums, if I recall, but nothing ever can of it. Perhaps as part of this we can tone down the thunderers.
I invented a new way to precisely evaluate the function of glare. Basically, setting up a scene that a ranged unit is attacking this glare unit, by calculating how great possibility it would be interrupted in general (the offense unit could successfully shot how many arrows/fireballs etc.), collaborate data and compare it to normal situation (inflicted damage when the attack cannot be interrupted), deduce the lost damage during interruption. Due to have no damage at all, it is a very beautiful weapon special that should be able to perfectly fit in some formulas. Consequently, interrupting units could possibility suffer more damage than normal ones and interruption ability could be transferred to additional HP, synchronize units and finally make it applicable.

Having different strikes and damage per strike, however, would matter a lot. One strike units are totally unshaken by interruption, and would bring large overflows in calculation--unless with firststrike, which is mentioned above, very rational and preferable, so the unistrike situation dilemma is no more. But technically, this weapon special is too simple to pay enough attention on some other important balancing issues; it simply ignores all strikes/damage balance of the default settings and stop this process after successfully nullify the "unused" damage. The overall damage of a unit in a certain attack range, regardless of its strikes or damage, shall be rather balanced judged only upon total damage. But this ability ignores this important fact. What's more, it ignores overall average terrain dodge rate level as well, making even less sense for balancing; but this is a minor issue, because we had the experience of letting lv1 units to deal "slow" or "marksman" damage as well, which should technically cause the same kind of problem; but they seem to reach a harmonious situation in the default era, and the exact reasons remain unknown because I have never tried to prove this minor issue by calculating. As far as I could figure out, I could say this balance is based on these facts:
(1) It is an overall same-level battle and the efficiency remains to affect and flow back and forth within a small range (maximum 36 damage in very special situation).
(2) It has either an some counter units in every other factions or a possibility to be killed easily, which indicate this units shall be a support unit, instead of a fighter/archer pattern unit.
(3) It must not belong to defenders (or tanks) pattern.
Obviously, orcish samnis is not such a kind of unit. They are designed as orcish sturdy tanks; they are hard to take down by force in melee combats; their ability could greatly recude inflicted damage exponentially over their enemies' levels, get strengthened efficiency, which indicate its defensive ability could vary and it is hardly predictable. In a simpler way, when their enemy get stronger, they become stronger; and as hardy units, this ability itself is unacceptable, based on some predictable results and former experience. Somehow, it brought the same dilemma which we have dealt with dwarvish scouts before. It is banned from default era in 1v1 match due to being good at both ranged and melee combats. Samnis is not very different from this case for having interruption.

There is a last problem of this ability: the rationale. It would be simply too foolish to let a unit “glare” other units in the night (don’t tell me you can “glare” me under moonlight. I could only lol for this :lol2: ). Nor is it feasible (pratically) during dawn and dusk. So in my opinion, it should be set as a functional ability only during daytime, two turns over a six turns day.

These are the analysis of the feasibility of balancing and unfeasibility of applying this ability. Personally speaking, I dislike like for being imbalanced and overstrong (and annoying in campaigns). But somehow, its terrifying effect is a considerable advantage worthy for us to take a look. I suggest improving it and limit its usage. It shall be made more exclusively, instead of being readily acquired by cheap lv1 orcish units, or it would predictably cause imbalance, since this ability is of a higher level usage (total interruption; become more powerful dealing with higher level units). It can belong to lv3s (lv2 not recommended and unpreferable, because it still has other defects like strikes/damage per strike imbalance etc.), and the effciency calculation could have an exponential decaying tendency instead of increasing. The price limit thus get settled. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, it should keep having 0 damage, because it is the basis of its computability. Its strikes shall be limited, preferably a maximum of two strikes, but unproven or calculated till this far.
Last edited by AxalaraFlame on November 28th, 2012, 4:06 pm, edited 9 times in total.

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by UnwiseOwl » November 28th, 2012, 5:45 am

Well, the samnis line got the sun glare as a bonus against ranged opponents, when it was previously just a melee unit. It's not like it's actually taking more damage at all, it's just that its chance to break the advantage that ranged units have against it doesn't apply against the thunderers. I don't think that's a disaster, it just means that you've got to keep them away from thunderers if you're not willing to take the chance that they'll get hit without a chance to retaliate, just like every other melee unit.
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

User avatar
AxalaraFlame
Posts: 690
Joined: December 4th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Location: Pasadina, Caltech

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by AxalaraFlame » November 28th, 2012, 5:54 am

Sorry, my browser always shake when I reached the bottom line. I have not yet finished that post, so plz be patient make a fair judgement later :)

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by UnwiseOwl » November 28th, 2012, 6:00 am

Ah, I see.
I had that issue for a while once upon a time (on a different forum).
I used to write my posts in a word processor and then just paste them across.
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

User avatar
AxalaraFlame
Posts: 690
Joined: December 4th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Location: Pasadina, Caltech

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by AxalaraFlame » November 28th, 2012, 6:24 am

Finished. If you are not willing to read long stuff, first paragraph is about the way to evaluate/balance it, second paragraph is its technical predicament and limit, third paragraph is its rationale predicament. In the last one I gave my suggestions about how to apply it.

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by UnwiseOwl » November 28th, 2012, 11:29 pm

I'm not convinced by your rationale, actually. It's a long-standing maxim that in Wesnoth we balance for factions, not units, and this unit has a specific and crucial role as a counter to factions with superior ranged units, I'm much more likely to tone down its melee attack (5 hits for a level one is a bit silly) than strip if of this useful ability. And of course the counter is simple, don't attack it with ranged units if you really need the samnis dead... I see some of your points, but I don't think that you've convinced me yet.

That said, providing a development version seems to be going quite well, so I'd be open to trying any changes that any users might deem appropriate in that. If people could propose changes I'll have a look over them and implement the ones that seem to make the most sense, but we'll probably do only a few at a time so that we can more accurately judge the effects of each individual change.

If people don't suggest things, I'll just try some ideas of my own. So to save the world from my madness, it's time to throw down some ideas ;)
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

User avatar
Temuchin Khan
Posts: 1715
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map

Re: Imperial Era (Version 0.20.4 Released)

Post by Temuchin Khan » November 29th, 2012, 9:03 pm

UnwiseOwl wrote:Temuchin. About the sun glare thing with thunderers, you have a point, but I'm not convinced that it's worth changing it for the match-up with one unusual unit, given that with one large ranged attacks the thunderers are somewhat odd. I'll have a look at it, of course, but no-one goes up against thunderers in a ranged fight.
I can see the logic in that. No need to give them back first strike.
That said, Cavernei changes to make them different to the mainline are well overdue.
Sounds like a good idea.
There were some vague plans over in the old forums, if I recall, but nothing ever can of it. Perhaps as part of this we can tone down the thunderers.
Or maybe we could replace the thunderer with a crossbowman.
EDIT: I've now released version 0.20.5, which solves the most pressing of the above issues, namely the Cavernei Journeymann issues and the missing Orcei changes, as well as a couple of the image issues brought up by AxalaraFlame.
Good! I'll check it out when I have a chance.
Assuming that things are ok with this release, the next version will incorporate both a "stable" and an "experimental" version of the era so that we can test any large-scale changes before inflicting them upon the campaigns. I don't know when this will happen, but I hope that I will get it released sometime in the next little while.
Sounds good.

EDIT: I failed to mention that 0.20.4 also had a problem with Imperial Champions. In IC, the Orcei were not able to recruit all their units. I think the problem was with the Essedarius, the River Lizard, and the Khampsa. I'll check if 0.20.5 has that problem.
Last edited by Temuchin Khan on November 29th, 2012, 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AxalaraFlame
Posts: 690
Joined: December 4th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Location: Pasadina, Caltech

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by AxalaraFlame » November 29th, 2012, 9:04 pm

@UnwiseOwl
It seems that you did not get the essential idea. I am not sure whether I presented it in an enough clear way, but I guess it is largely understandable. If you were so resistant in keeping this ability in lv1, well...I would say, ugh...you know, I always thought that it is a rather humble calling for yourself as "Unwise"Owl. I really have no meaning to offense, but people's empirical way of thinking and negative minding inertia always frustrate me. I will try show you the whole calculation process and prove I am right scientifically. :)

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by UnwiseOwl » November 29th, 2012, 10:53 pm

EDIT: I failed to mention that 0.20.4 also had a problem with Imperial Champions. In IC, the Orcei were not able to recruit all their units. I think the problem was with the Essedarius, the River Lizard, and the Khampsa. I'll check if 0.20.5 has that problem.
Hadn't noticed this, but then again I don't play champions much. Let me know if an update is required.
It seems that you did not get the essential idea. I am not sure whether I presented it in an enough clear way, but I guess it is largely understandable. If you were so resistant in keeping this ability in lv1, well...I would say, ugh...you know, I always thought that it is a rather humble calling for yourself as "Unwise"Owl. I really have no meaning to offense, but people's empirical way of thinking and negative minding inertia always frustrate me. I will try show you the whole calculation process and prove I am right scientifically. :)
Don't worry, I won't be offended. Personally I've always thought that Temuchin was the prickly one around here :P . Feel free to demonstrate the accuracy of your calculations, I just wanted to point out to you that a faction is greater than the sum of its parts, and as the person advocating a change, the onus of proof is on you.
I do appreciate the input, and acknowledge that I am very protective of Orbivm (it's like looking after somebody else's kids). If you can make suggestions that make the era demonstratably more balanced and no (or not much) less fun, of course I'll listen to them, but don't expect me to automatically adopt your position just because you insist that it's scientific. I think faction design is more an art than a science anyway.
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

User avatar
Temuchin Khan
Posts: 1715
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by Temuchin Khan » November 29th, 2012, 11:07 pm

UnwiseOwl wrote:Personally I've always thought that Temuchin was the prickly one around here :P .
I've been involved with the Orbivm factions since the beginning. The Orcei Gladiatores were my idea in the first place. The Issaelfr were not initially my idea, but I did design the unit tree. I also helped Unsung and Turin with the Lavinian Legion tree, and the Nemidian Horseman was my idea. If you're protective of Orbivm because you feel like you're looking after someone else's kids, I feel like they're mine. Especially the Orcei! So yeah, I get a little protective about it too.

But still, I'm open to balancing changes when someone shows that it is needed. I always said to myself, as I was doing the original Orcei cfg's, that it was more important to get some initial stats made than to worry about balancing. Balancing matters, but it has to come later.
Feel free to demonstrate the accuracy of your calculations, I just wanted to point out to you that a faction is greater than the sum of its parts, and as the person advocating a change, the onus of proof is on you.
I do appreciate the input, and acknowledge that I am very protective of Orbivm (it's like looking after somebody else's kids). If you can make suggestions that make the era demonstratably more balanced and no (or not much) less fun, of course I'll listen to them, but don't expect me to automatically adopt your position just because you insist that it's scientific. I think faction design is more an art than a science anyway.
I second that, Unwise Owl. Axalara Flame, we are open to your ideas for balancing changes, but we do want to have some clearer idea of why they're needed. That's all. But hey, once the experimental branch gets implemented, I'm open to trying out all sorts of suggested changes. After all, as long as standard is still available, no big deal.

User avatar
AxalaraFlame
Posts: 690
Joined: December 4th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Location: Pasadina, Caltech

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by AxalaraFlame » November 29th, 2012, 11:32 pm

That protective mind is understandable. After all, it is the crystal of a founding father's work. I third to you guys if you insist. However, I will try figure it out.

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by UnwiseOwl » November 30th, 2012, 12:37 am

I third to you guys if you insist. However, I will try figure it out.
Don't misunderstand, we're not enforcing some heirachy with the old guard on the top or anything like that. You're welcome to contribute just like ayone else is, and your opinions are no less valid just becuase you're new. I only won't take them if they're too hard to code or if I can see a good reason not to.
So, contribute, I need ideas to put into the dev version. I'm particularly interested in changes to the Arendians and Issaelfr. Changes to the Orcei will need to be okayed by Temuchin, since they're his baby, but in the dev version it's all up for grabs.

To get the ball rolling, some of the things I'm going to try out:

Many people have pointed out that having a high-powered level zero in the auxilliary combined with the leadership ability of the centurion line is overbearing. However, the leadership ability is a critical part of the historical flavour of the Lavinians. I'd like to replace leadership with an ability I call "auctoritas" which acts exactly like leadership but only for Lavinian units, not for Auxilla or Nemidians. For campaign purposes, the Lavinians will retain the Imperator and Tribune units with true leadership.

Back in the day, turin attempted to develop an ability called 'formation', which increased the resistances of legionnaire line units when they were alongside each other. I'd like to look at introducing this again. Of course, Lavinians already have pretty good resistances, so it'd probably go hand in hand with an across-the-board decrease in resistances.

Turin also worked on a 'rulelaying' ability for the runemaster line, which he couldn't get to work. As part of wholescale changes to the Cavernei, I'm hoping to get it working. I think that the new terrain overlay systems should make this less of a task that it might once have been.

I'm also hoping to tone done the Marauder movement speed and or/terrain defence ratings. Their forestry skill is understandable, but their mountain movement doesn't seem to be justified in Orbivm or for real world barbarians, and it gameplay terms it is certainly disconcerting.

Risking Temuchin's wrath, I'd like to try a chaotic/neutral split for the Orcei somehow, probably on magni/minuti lines. I've suggested it before and we decided not to go ahead, but if we've got a development era I still think it's worth a try. If it makes the Orcei better I'm sure that we come up with a justification for it, otherwise at least it will shut me up about it ;)
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

User avatar
AxalaraFlame
Posts: 690
Joined: December 4th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Location: Pasadina, Caltech

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by AxalaraFlame » November 30th, 2012, 4:31 am

All right, let Chan deal with orc issues and lets move on. If we were not allowed (or due to some kind of respect to the precurssors) to make great changes on units, like what the sucker ageless have done (deformed!!) to Imperial, I would only focus on minor maths issues, ruling out unnecessary balancing equations, and make some little changes on hp/attack/movement.
Besides, I joined the forum late because in the earlier years my english wasn't even enough to let me survive in this country, but I have been playing wesnoth for years, and I have been working on balance issuses for a long while, so I guess I could at least give some elementary opinions. I guess we can be more specifically, which is more constructive.
1. Maradurer warrior price shall be lowered down to $1a5, or maradurers will overrely on axeman (which is an IMBA unit for having both good range and melee attacks; but I amnot allowed to touch it, hm).
2. Maraduere boatman is obviously too weak. It is very like merman, but far less addequate than them...

EDIT
...and should be buffed from all dimensions. Lower its price by 1, buff damage by 1 could be some nice basic changes.
Last edited by AxalaraFlame on November 30th, 2012, 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by UnwiseOwl » November 30th, 2012, 5:31 am

I say again, there's no ban on making major changes, we just want to keep the flavour of the IE as sacred. Feel free to suggest large-scale changes, just don't be offended if there's opposition. I know it sounds a little presumptuous, but a civilised society thrives on debate.
As to your marauder changes, I agree with the boatsman one, I'm thinking of significantly tweaking his resistances, and I think I agree with scaling back the axeman's melee a little too. I'd have to look at the fighter, as it has that excellent fire attack that to my mind makes it worth the cost, but I'd have to take another look.
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

User avatar
AxalaraFlame
Posts: 690
Joined: December 4th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Location: Pasadina, Caltech

Re: Imperial Era (NEW: Version 0.20.5 Released)

Post by AxalaraFlame » November 30th, 2012, 5:58 pm

Damn, computer shut down again when I was finishing the post :augh:

"Sacred" is such a big word for it. It is but an UMC era. :lol2: But if you guys don't mind big changes, I would suggest to make samnis's sun glare work only under good sunlight...which at least make some sense, you know.

Post Reply