Costs for level 2 & 3 (& 4) units

[torangan]

I'd say the fact that the mainline campaigns makes this change even more important. If they're prized wrong the AI gets a unjustified advantage/disadvantage depending on wheter they're to cheap or costly. I prefer it when the AI gold is set to values which create the intended difficulty based upon realistic costs. That it makes Age of Heros better playable is a nice bonus.
Don't forget, there'll pass quite some time to fix bugs and allow translations before 1.0. During all those time balancing can occur because it's orthogonal to both.

[ott]

Don't forget, there'll pass quite some time to fix bugs and allow translations before 1.0. During all those time balancing can occur because it's orthogonal to both.

Fantastic theory. However, in the last six months there have been a handful of people putting in serious work on trying to balance campaigns. So unless that changes, I suggest not holding your breath.

[Elvish_Pillager]

What's more, bear in mind that many of the other balancing changes happening now are even more invasive.

All scenarios in which your opponents are Orcish Assassins or Archers or are Troll Whelps have become easier.

All scenarios in which you control Dwarvish Fighters and Thunderers are now easier, and will soon be more easier.

Anyone who used Rangers/Avengers will now have a weaker army. Anyone who uses them subsequently will find it harder.

Anyone who uses Elvish Scouts a lot will find their upgrades much more effective.

All are recent changes. All throw off campaign balance. Do all the upper balancing first, then work out the problems for campaigns. The campaigns are at the bottom of the balancing sequence, which is a pity, but they should stay there.

[js138]

This thought came to me as I was falling asleep last night - clearly I'm spending too much time thinking about Wesnoth but...

Since every time there is a cost or other change in the base Wesnoth the campaign balance is thrown for a loop, perhaps the thing to do is to make the campaigns (optionally) more independant of these changes.

A simple first pass for this would be to allow campaign writers to have a simple way to set the costs (and/or other stats) for the units in their campaigns. After all there is no strong reason why a unit which costs 15 in MP should have to cost the same in all campaigns which use that unit.

This one any balancing work using those costs doesn't need to be redone if there are future MP balancing changes to unit costs (and/or stats).

In other words a campaign developer can choose to freeze the units capabilities and costs for their campaign before they spend too much time balancing, knowing that any balancing work need not be redone.

Just an idea.

[scott]

Most of the time I think in terms of 20x gold for recalls, which is a good first order approximation to campaign balancing. Sometimes you only give the player a small number of units to recruit, growing as the campaign progresses - also something that can ease campaign balancing.

Finally, most campaigns have a gold frontier level - before you reach the frontier, you're struggling for gold. After you reach the frontier, gold isn't an issue until you get to a break/rebuild point in the campaign. HttT definitely has 2 break/rebuild points (VoD, SoF) and a gold frontier around scenario 3 or 4. If campaign balancing is thought of in terms of these milestones, then the task becomes easier because all you have to do is preserve them.

The best balance I suppose is to keep the player perpetually on the edge of the frontier, but you don't need to do this for a campaign to be balanced. There are plenty of reasons to not do it, and instead overshoot the frontier.


Edit: I never really got to my point, which was that campaign balancing has multiple granularities to it that can accomodate being at the bottom of the list of balancing priorities.

[muxec]

Pillager please correct

Merman Netcaster: 18
Merman Entangler: 25

2nd level mermen are good. Netcaster must cost about 30... Now it costs 40 and I still buy netcasters in multiplayer.

There are many other "mistakes" (horse lord?) in your list by I generally agree to most of your corrections, especially those about cost of elves and undead.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Pillager please correct

Merman Netcaster: 18
Merman Entangler: 25

2nd level mermen are good. Netcaster must cost about 30... Now it costs 40 and I still buy netcasters in multiplayer.

Of course, netcaster = slow, and it doesn't know about abilities. Now fixed.

[wisdomless]

What's more, bear in mind that many of the other balancing changes happening now are even more invasive.

All scenarios in which your opponents are Orcish Assassins or Archers or are Troll Whelps have become easier.

All scenarios in which you control Dwarvish Fighters and Thunderers are now easier, and will soon be more easier.

Anyone who used Rangers/Avengers will now have a weaker army. Anyone who uses them subsequently will find it harder.

Anyone who uses Elvish Scouts a lot will find their upgrades much more effective.

All are recent changes. All throw off campaign balance. Do all the upper balancing first, then work out the problems for campaigns. The campaigns are at the bottom of the balancing sequence, which is a pity, but they should stay there.

What?! When did this happen and why?

[Elvish_Pillager]

Those are previous balancing changes that happened recently at the time of that post. I believe you joined after all of them took effect.

[wisdomless]

Oh... I apologize.

[Elvish_Pillager]

So now, can we DO this? I wouldn't want to see these changes left undone just because no-one could be bothered to commit them...

P.S.: Yes, that means we're back to the old days.

[wisdomless]

Wait, the changes were implemented before I got here, but they haven't been done? What? Were they just not in the game?

We're back to the old days? Does that mean we're undoing the changes?

[Elvish_Pillager]

Wait, the changes were implemented before I got here, but they haven't been done? What? Were they just not in the game?

The changes that you quoted were implemented before you got here; the changes that are the purpose of this thread have not been implemented at all yet.

We're back to the old days? Does that mean we're undoing the changes?

It only means that that guy Elvish Pillager is complaining about people being too lazy to commit things again.

[wisdomless]

Okay, I'm not confused anymore. Thanks pillage-man.

[turin]

I don't have the authority to commit them. AFAIK, very few people do... basically, the multiplayer developers, and then the senior developers. Also, some unit costs have changed since this was last updated. Maybe you should run it again, and post those as the definite ones to use...