Drake too weak vs. Undead?

Gus · Post by **Gus** » March 23rd, 2007, 1:46 am

EDIT: I guess i've misread.

JW · Post by JW » March 23rd, 2007, 1:47 am

F8 Binds... wrote:you think that drake movement is too powerful against a slow race in general then, I suppose? in that respect, drakes should win more than not against loyalists as well? (sorry for being sarcastic) archers should take much damage before going down, and atleast to some damage to burners in retaliation. they are you cheap line-holders. with a few ghouls mixed in, maybe a skeleton for saurians, and adepts in back, you got a drake- killing force.

Want to play a game online? I'm jumping on 1.2.x now. I can show you a few tricks Drakes have.

Post by **Doc Paterson** » March 23rd, 2007, 1:55 am

Gus wrote:
F8 Binds... wrote:(sorry for being sarcastic)
Maybe you shouldn't be: Roman_Loyalist has played a number of tournaments, with pretty decent results.

That's a strange comment to make, seeing as F8 was only joking, and more importantly, wasn't even talking to RL.

Post by **F8 Binds...** » March 23rd, 2007, 2:11 am

JW wrote:
F8 Binds... wrote:you think that drake movement is too powerful against a slow race in general then, I suppose? in that respect, drakes should win more than not against loyalists as well? (sorry for being sarcastic) archers should take much damage before going down, and atleast to some damage to burners in retaliation. they are you cheap line-holders. with a few ghouls mixed in, maybe a skeleton for saurians, and adepts in back, you got a drake- killing force.
Want to play a game online? I'm jumping on 1.2.x now. I can show you a few tricks Drakes have.

If you would like to plan a few days ahead, I'm in. -7 hours GMT. I'm available in a couple days, these few ahead are a *little* busy. Perhaps Monday or Tuesday?

Darn Penguin · Post by **Darn Penguin** » March 23rd, 2007, 2:29 am

I'd just like to point out that the unbalance between undead and drakes has been partially addressed, with the ghosts' draining moves changed from cold to holy in 1.3. Also, I recommend that all the undead are best handled by throwing them really, really far.

Roman Loyalist · Post by **Roman Loyalist** » March 23rd, 2007, 7:20 am

Sapient wrote:
Roman Loyalist wrote:uniquely need increase resistans from -50 to -20 & this enought. I play in wesnoth 2,5 & understand something in balance.
I think a better idea would be to decrease dark adepts' movement by one.

Bad idea, undead will have a little harder play versus other faction's. such as Dwarf. Problem only with Drake's.
And why undead have only -20 resistance to fire? may be decrease , such as Drake, to -50? Oh, he will become too weak vs mages. but, if to listen you , drake's survive somehow vs undead? & Undead will learn! i joke.
if serious , i not see reasons for the increase resistance to cold for Drake's. it will influence only on mutchup Drake_Undead, any faction not have powerful units with cold atack (shaman have very small).

Doc Paterson wrote:
Do you think that it's at all unrealistic and/or cocky to assume that you know better than the group of experts that balanced this matchup?

how balanced? I not see this. In the nigth 1 adepts may do 19*2=38 Damage for 70% of luck. It's enough for killing lizarrd's, scout, fighter. Only burner & clasher survive. In day under protection bone bowmens not easy kill adepts

Doc Paterson wrote: Why exactly would anyone want believe that you are right, and the best players, who think that this match is balanced, are wrong?

Do you really think that just because you don't know how to play the match properly that all of these other players are wrong?

indeed. I see how these best players die in this mutchup

if anybody want to prove me reverse , welcome to lobby

(but last time i'am not often guest there. too busy

)

ps: i hope my english not too bad for understanding.

palloco · Post by **palloco** » March 23rd, 2007, 7:45 am

Reducing resistence from -50 to -40 will not make a big difference and may make it more balanced if it already isnt

Roman Loyalist · Post by **Roman Loyalist** » March 23rd, 2007, 7:56 am

palloco wrote:Reducing resistence from -50 to -40 will not make a big difference and may make it more balanced if it already isnt

no. it's decrease damage from 38 to 36 only. not enough. - (20-25)% will be enough for survive fighter.

Haibane · Post by **Haibane** » March 23rd, 2007, 8:54 am

Depends on map imho. At small map without enought obstacles, drakes have disadvantage. But it's same pain at bigger ones with much terrain to play undeads, against good drake player almost impossible (it just takes longer to lose).
In other words, drakes and undeads are not balanced concerning pure strength, but they have similar chance to win. Map issue is price for uniqueness. I don't see reason why to change it, you could balance their pure strength but that would make drakes unbeatable in some cases.
And I'm against it, please don't try to make drakes similar to undeads just with fire instead of ice, I like how different they are. I don't like idea about better cold resistance.

I don't know about quick trait remove, it could be good idea against drakes (not sure about it) but it would make disadvantage against other factions, quick adepts are often important. We should remove quick trait from ulfsekers in next step

Roman Loyalist · Post by **Roman Loyalist** » March 23rd, 2007, 9:20 am

Haibane wrote:Depends on map imho. At small map without enought obstacles, drakes have disadvantage. But it's same pain at bigger ones with much terrain to play undeads, against good drake player almost impossible (it just takes longer to lose).

Agree & not only with Undead

But on most popular duel maps this work bad.
Hamlets have too much open space, but look this replay. comments are superfluous

http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/download.php?id=14677
for Drake's play Gallifax. Bruteforce atack not stopped.

Post by **Soliton** » March 23rd, 2007, 9:54 am

Roman Loyalist wrote: Hamlets have too much open space, but look this replay. comments are superfluous :(
http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/download.php?id=14677
for Drake's play Gallifax. Bruteforce atack not stopped.

Obviously bruteforce attacks are the crown of tactical brilliance and if they do not work everything is lost!

Please rewatch that replay and ask yourself if maybe there could be other causes as to why the Drakes lost that game...

Roman Loyalist · Post by **Roman Loyalist** » March 23rd, 2007, 10:08 am

Soliton wrote: Obviously bruteforce attacks are the crown of tactical brilliance and if they do not work everything is lost!

in that is a problem that without the special tactical devices fight was won.

Soliton wrote: Please rewatch that replay and ask yourself if maybe there could be other causes as to why the Drakes lost that game...

All causes i write upper. some saurians not rescued a situation. it's always a lottery. I remember last game with you on 'Silverhead Crossing', i could not kill 1 adept (with 40% defence) with 2 saurians+gladiator

that I yet can add to it ?

Post by **Soliton** » March 23rd, 2007, 10:31 am

Roman Loyalist wrote:
Soliton wrote: Obviously bruteforce attacks are the crown of tactical brilliance and if they do not work everything is lost!
in that is a problem that without the special tactical devices fight was won.

Nevermind apparently I'm unable to decipher your meaning. I was refering to the bruteforce attack Gallifax made at turn 9 which made the whole game pointless as any evidence to the balance between Drakes and Undead. If you actually analyze that game a bit that should be quite obvious.

(Not meaning to discredit Gallifax btw, I know he is a good player.)

Roman Loyalist · Post by **Roman Loyalist** » March 23rd, 2007, 11:47 am

Soliton
problem not in this concrete game. it's just an example, which got to my look.

Post by **Soliton** » March 23rd, 2007, 12:19 pm

Roman Loyalist wrote:Soliton
problem not in this concrete game. it's just an example, which got to my look.

How is it an example if it doesn't show the actual problem?