Too weak mages ?

[Yomar]

The mage (present in loyals and rebels factions) has as standard 24 hp, and there are no terrains where he can have more than 60% defence, only castles and mountains, plus he is very expensive (20gp), a weak mage can be killed by just by one strong ork at night, a strong elf at day, one griffin at any time, a spearman at day, hosremens, cavallry, wose, and tons of other units, for example he is good against the tough dwarvish stalwarth, but he can be wounded from his trowing attack and then killed in the next turn by his melee attack, and even a healty one if he has the strong trait.
So just to know other ppl opinion, since its high cost, would it so crazy to give him just one (1) more hp ?

[Turuk]

Factions are balanced against factions, not unit against unit. Noting how a Mage can be killed easily by a number of units is not a strong argument for increasing HP, even by 1.

[monochromatic]

This is to counter-balance the mage's incredible offensive power: 7-3 fire magical, which is devastatingly effective against most enemies (Drakes being a notable exception). This number increases to a whopping 9-3 fire magical during the day, which will tear most units to shreds and outright kill wounded ones.

Loyalists already have two outstanding defensive units (Spearmen and HI, depending on the matchup) which already pose a difficult challenge to certain factions. Increasing the mage's hitpoints by one, as you suggested, now requiring (at least) two enemy units to kill it (with some notable exceptions), suddenly increases the value of the mage dramatically. Suddenly, it's okay to leave that one hex open, which frees up another one of your units to attack the enemies' units, and on the next turn locks up another enemy unit in order to kill your mage.

[Eagle_11]

The mage has 24 hp, and he cant have more than 60% defence

So what ? Not having more than 60% sounds like any other unit.

He costs a fortune (20gp)

the cost and long exp bar is because he branches into 2 different roles(damage-dealer and healer) with again dividing in 2 at next lvl up if damage-dealer branch is chosen, of which one choice then has the only teleport ability in entire game afaik.

He is squishy omg!

Excuse me but if he had an adequate hp pool for facetanking all coming towards him atop of high dmg and spells then you wouldve complained about "MAGES OP!11!". Besides dishing out high dmg and assisting via spells in exchange for an low health pool, if not the lowest in setting is the traditional approach to mages.

Why not +1 HP

Why 1 ? You seriously think just 1(one) HP would magically somehow change all of this ?

[Yomar]

By Turuk

Factions are balanced against factions, not unit against unit. Noting how a Mage can be killed easily by a number of units is not a strong argument for increasing HP, even by 1.

I know, this was repeated a lot of times allready, in fact I was talking of his role in an group strategy, even if protected at both sides he can still be killed easly during enemy's turn.
I'm not so crazy to send a mage arround alone,lol.

By Eagle_11

So what ? Not having more than 60% sounds like any other unit.

What ? Are you a noob ? There are a lot of units that can get actually more than 60 % of deffense, like Elvish Archers, Dwarves, Footpads, Thieves, Fencers, Elvish Shamans (just to say some) or that get 60% more easly, like Dwarves, Elves, Saurians, Skeletons.

By Eagle_11

the cost and long exp bar is because he branches into 2 different roles(damage-dealer and healer) with again dividing in 2 at next lvl up if damage-dealer branch is chosen, of which one choice then has the only teleport ability in entire game afaik.

Other Units like Rebels units have some or all of these charatteristics, but they are cheaper and have better defenses.


By Eagle_11

Why 1 ? You seriously think just 1(one) HP would magically somehow change all of this ?

Who eveer said that , beside you ? I don't want unbalance the game, but at least justify a tiny bit its high cost, a mage can go down to only like 23 hp.
I mean the other low HP units can advance, retreat and survive more easly, like the Elvish Shaman or Elvish Archer because they have dedicated terrains with high defense, and still have more HP than a mage, even the Dark Adept is better (From the description they are supposed to be very weak) is better, he has allmost the same power relatively much more HP and is much cheaper, I saw DA spam but rarly mage spam.
For example the Wose costs 20 Gp, but he has a lot of more HP than mage and he does even more dammage, allmost no single lv.1 unit can kill him alone and you need at least 2 mages to kill one during daytime, plus he regenerates.
Considering all this, plus the fact that he requires a lot of XP to evolve, I proposed to increase a bit his Hp, or do something else to justify the high cost, I said to increase the Hp by 1 because if I would have suggested something else, more radical, ppl would have began to cry, maybe the cost should be reduced to IDk like 18 ?
If you for example loose some dark adept during your plan you can replace him much more easly to attack again during next night, than a mage.

[Velensk]

We know that you didn't mean any offense or to imbalance. I don't think anyone was trying to be rude however this forum has an overabundance of people randomly coming on and suggesting balance changes, frequently without a solid understanding of how wesnoth is balanced.

You are correct in your statement that mages are highly inefficent units, however they need to be for balance reasons. The reason for this is that Wesnoth is balanced on a faction vs faction basis and in that context although mages are very inefficent, they still have enough of a needed effect/role to be useful. What is more making them tougher or more accessible would make them too strong against things that are weak to them. Undead already have a hard time putting any kind of defense that can withstand mages without the mages being easier to access, and knalgans already have a hard enough time against loyalists without the loyalist fortbusters being more efficient. By contrast, Dark Adepts play the role of primary muscle in their faction and need to be relatively efficient (though if you look at it, it's a kind of odd balance, they still have less hp and damage than other factions muscle just so that they can get magic/cold but the funny thing is that it works).

The net result is that when proposing balance changes rather than pointing out 'problems' with units you need to do it for factions. Instead of saying 'mages are too squishy so lets either buff them or make them cheaper' you'd have to say something like, 'I think that loyalists struggle too much against northerners and that this can be fixed by [X]' keeping in mind that [X] has to simultaneously not unbalance every other match-up. Because of that, and the fact that you will have to overcome to collective experience of every very experienced player who feels things are balanced trying to make any balance change is a very difficult task especially for someone without reputation.

Admittedly, I don't think a 1hp buff would be too terrible but when you see the kind of reaction it gets it comes from not wanting the project to get out of control. I also don't see a problem with things the way they are and so very little reason to change anything. Loyalists are consistently pretty strong even after cavalry nerfs. Maybe if mages were just for rebels I'd see it a hair.

[Yomar]

Thank you Velensk, yes I felt those answers a bit rude, I wanted only opinions, not to start an argue, I tried only to bring up logical points, so there will never unit ballancing only because ppl get mad, Its a long time that I play this game, and I just came up with these observations after countless games, but if everyone thinks everything is fine how its now, ok, I will not start a war.

[Turuk]

I know, this was repeated a lot of times allready, in fact I was talking of his role in an group strategy, even if protected at both sides he can still be killed easly during enemy's turn.
I'm not so crazy to send a mage arround alone,lol.

Velensk already touched on this, but if you are indeed talking to group strategy and his role in a faction, than you should be presenting your argument in that fashion. When you state how easily a mage can be killed by single units, it sounds as if you are comparing him one on one against other units.

Thank you Velensk, yes I felt those answers a bit rude, I wanted only opinions, not to start an argue, I tried only to bring up logical points, so there will never unit ballancing only because ppl get mad, Its a long time that I play this game, and I just came up with these observations after countless games, but if everyone thinks everything is fine how its now, ok, I will not start a war.

It's not starting a war, if you're going to propose something you have to be open to hearing discussion on the proposed change from opinions that might differ from your own. Comments like:

What ? Are you a noob ?

are rude in response, and do not help in making your point.

[Velensk]

If you think they're too weak then try playing without them and see how you do. Not even joking. There are many situations where it's better to not use mages. However, just because they are a situational specialist does not mean they are not balanced.

It's really hard to judge a units utility by looking at its stats without a larger context. Stat-wise I'd say heavy infantry are far more efficent and scary than mages and yet in 1vs1 multiplayer I find that mages are much more likely to be a good pick.

[Yomar]

By Turuk

are rude in response, and do not help in making your point.

As I wrote, I answered in this way only because the earler answer was rude too, and I was a bit bothered that often when I write something ppl keep answering in a rude way, anyawy i meant just to ask if he was a beginner in this game.

Beside this ty Turuk for telling me how to explain better what I mean.

By Velensk

If you think they're too weak then try playing without them and see how you do. Not even joking. There are many situations where it's better to not use mages. However, just because they are a situational specialist does not mean they are not balanced.

It's really hard to judge a units utility by looking at its stats without a larger context. Stat-wise I'd say heavy infantry are far more efficent and scary than mages and yet in 1vs1 multiplayer I find that mages are much more likely to be a good pick.

Yes I play often without recruiting him (beside when playing vs undeads), but loosing one is a pain, 2 is a trouble, 3 is almost a bankrupt thing on small maps with few villagges.

[Turuk]

As I wrote, I answered in this way only because the earler answer was rude too, and I was a bit bothered that often when I write something ppl keep answering in a rude way, anyawy i meant just to ask if he was a beginner in this game.

Be the better person and ignore the rude comments, it is not only in Guideline 1b, but it keeps your argument from degenerating into a war.

Yes I play often without recruiting him (beside when playing vs undeads), but loosing one is a pain, 2 is a trouble, 3 is almost a bankrupt thing on small maps with few villagges.

A bit dated, but not sure if you've ever read through the How To Play wiki entry?

[Yomar]

By Turuk

A bit dated, but not sure if you've ever read through the How To Play wiki entry?

Of course.