the slow effect has never been correct
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
DwarvenWarrior
- Posts: 52
- Joined: October 17th, 2015, 10:15 pm
the slow effect has never been correct
hello guys,
I just had an idea that makes slow effect much more balanced than it currently is:
Main suggestion:
Movement cost for slowed units now cost + 1 more movements. for example: heavy infantrymen movement on ground: 2, on sand: 3, on hill 4, and on water/swamp 5 (so only quick ones can move on water while slow).
Reasons: I feel double movement cost for rough terrain is way too much sometimes. moving on hill costing 4 movement speeds make impossible to move more than 1 hex. I thought quick spearman should be able to move 2 hexes at least or something.
Another minor brainstorm of similar suggestion:
Now what about the damage? should it stay halved? or should slow effect lower the number of strikes and make the unit strike later?
what do you think?
I just had an idea that makes slow effect much more balanced than it currently is:
Main suggestion:
Movement cost for slowed units now cost + 1 more movements. for example: heavy infantrymen movement on ground: 2, on sand: 3, on hill 4, and on water/swamp 5 (so only quick ones can move on water while slow).
Reasons: I feel double movement cost for rough terrain is way too much sometimes. moving on hill costing 4 movement speeds make impossible to move more than 1 hex. I thought quick spearman should be able to move 2 hexes at least or something.
Another minor brainstorm of similar suggestion:
Now what about the damage? should it stay halved? or should slow effect lower the number of strikes and make the unit strike later?
what do you think?
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
I think that the slow effect was always intended to be that crippling.
It used to be that slow did in fact, decrease the number of strikes on each attack instead of halving damage. This was changed because it gave slow a very lopsided effect vs 2 strike as opposed 4 strike units that was difficult to balance.
It used to be that slow did in fact, decrease the number of strikes on each attack instead of halving damage. This was changed because it gave slow a very lopsided effect vs 2 strike as opposed 4 strike units that was difficult to balance.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
-
DwarvenWarrior
- Posts: 52
- Joined: October 17th, 2015, 10:15 pm
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
what about movement cost + 1
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
Changing the movement penalty to +1 for all terrains sounds good to me, since it does still halve movement on preferred terrain while being less crippling on higher-movement-cost terrains. However, I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of change had some unfortunate unintended consequences in some situations, so I'd certainly like to see some kind of more thorough analysis of what it would mean.
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
I'm not sure what kind of unanticipated effect you're thinking. The implications seem pretty strait forward to me.
As it currently stands, slow at least halves your movement reach and will frequently do more. It renders terrain that takes more than half your movement completely un-enterable.
The proposed change is that slow only half your movement over terrain that didn't slow you and for every other type of terrain the effect is significant but not quite as crippling. Therefore, slowed units fighting in areas where they are slow may be able to move further than a hex or two (particularly if they are a high move unit). In order for this to be a change in the practical sense, you'd need to be in a situation where your units are slowed and where they would like to be moving over rough terrain.
In (default) multiplayer, only the rebels get the slow trait. Due to the way multiplayer maps tend to be designed, I'd judge that it's very unlikely that you'd find yourself in a situation where it matters. I think the most common situations would probably come out of the rebels vs loyalists match-up with heavy infantry (completely deny them access to hills even if adjacent [which even with the new system would still be true for non-quick HI]) and loyalist cavalry who might find hills a little less daunting. It'd also make 5 mp undead very slightly less crippled. In both cases however, the slowed unit would still be too slow to escape and would most likely still be to slow to reach tactically advantageous terrain. In seems like most of the time it'd not be a huge effect.
In the campaigns, the player very rarely has to fight enemies with 'slow'. It's mostly a tool that the players get so they don't have to feel the biting edge of it very often. That said, when using it I don't expect that they often feel the advantage of completely removing movement options from the AI as they must already be adjacent to the AI to slow them so the AI would just attack them anyway (though there is the rare theoretical situation where the quirks of how slow works could be exploited to protect a low health unit in a vulnerable position). I'd say that just that just like multiplayer, this is not likely to make any impact on the experience.
If there is a place where it makes a big difference, it'd be in custom maps that use slow. I can't comment on those.
Overall, I just don't see it mattering too much one way or the other. Slow's pretty strong either way.
As it currently stands, slow at least halves your movement reach and will frequently do more. It renders terrain that takes more than half your movement completely un-enterable.
The proposed change is that slow only half your movement over terrain that didn't slow you and for every other type of terrain the effect is significant but not quite as crippling. Therefore, slowed units fighting in areas where they are slow may be able to move further than a hex or two (particularly if they are a high move unit). In order for this to be a change in the practical sense, you'd need to be in a situation where your units are slowed and where they would like to be moving over rough terrain.
In (default) multiplayer, only the rebels get the slow trait. Due to the way multiplayer maps tend to be designed, I'd judge that it's very unlikely that you'd find yourself in a situation where it matters. I think the most common situations would probably come out of the rebels vs loyalists match-up with heavy infantry (completely deny them access to hills even if adjacent [which even with the new system would still be true for non-quick HI]) and loyalist cavalry who might find hills a little less daunting. It'd also make 5 mp undead very slightly less crippled. In both cases however, the slowed unit would still be too slow to escape and would most likely still be to slow to reach tactically advantageous terrain. In seems like most of the time it'd not be a huge effect.
In the campaigns, the player very rarely has to fight enemies with 'slow'. It's mostly a tool that the players get so they don't have to feel the biting edge of it very often. That said, when using it I don't expect that they often feel the advantage of completely removing movement options from the AI as they must already be adjacent to the AI to slow them so the AI would just attack them anyway (though there is the rare theoretical situation where the quirks of how slow works could be exploited to protect a low health unit in a vulnerable position). I'd say that just that just like multiplayer, this is not likely to make any impact on the experience.
If there is a place where it makes a big difference, it'd be in custom maps that use slow. I can't comment on those.
Overall, I just don't see it mattering too much one way or the other. Slow's pretty strong either way.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
-
DwarvenWarrior
- Posts: 52
- Joined: October 17th, 2015, 10:15 pm
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
it matters for quick trait for many unitsVelensk wrote:
Overall, I just don't see it mattering too much one way or the other. Slow's pretty strong either way.
-
DwarvenWarrior
- Posts: 52
- Joined: October 17th, 2015, 10:15 pm
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
this change will be a buff for most units. However, units with no penalty will be the ones unaffected, so that can be thought off as a nerf to those units. Namely: undead bat, and dwarves. they walk normal on most grounds and is nerf to them. for maps with many shallow waters, even dwarves would benifit from it (quick dwafs will be able to move in water)Velensk wrote: ↑February 20th, 2017, 2:36 pm I'm not sure what kind of unanticipated effect you're thinking. The implications seem pretty strait forward to me.
As it currently stands, slow at least halves your movement reach and will frequently do more. It renders terrain that takes more than half your movement completely un-enterable.
The proposed change is that slow only half your movement over terrain that didn't slow you and for every other type of terrain the effect is significant but not quite as crippling. Therefore, slowed units fighting in areas where they are slow may be able to move further than a hex or two (particularly if they are a high move unit). In order for this to be a change in the practical sense, you'd need to be in a situation where your units are slowed and where they would like to be moving over rough terrain.
In (default) multiplayer, only the rebels get the slow trait. Due to the way multiplayer maps tend to be designed, I'd judge that it's very unlikely that you'd find yourself in a situation where it matters. I think the most common situations would probably come out of the rebels vs loyalists match-up with heavy infantry (completely deny them access to hills even if adjacent [which even with the new system would still be true for non-quick HI]) and loyalist cavalry who might find hills a little less daunting. It'd also make 5 mp undead very slightly less crippled. In both cases however, the slowed unit would still be too slow to escape and would most likely still be to slow to reach tactically advantageous terrain. In seems like most of the time it'd not be a huge effect.
In the campaigns, the player very rarely has to fight enemies with 'slow'. It's mostly a tool that the players get so they don't have to feel the biting edge of it very often. That said, when using it I don't expect that they often feel the advantage of completely removing movement options from the AI as they must already be adjacent to the AI to slow them so the AI would just attack them anyway (though there is the rare theoretical situation where the quirks of how slow works could be exploited to protect a low health unit in a vulnerable position). I'd say that just that just like multiplayer, this is not likely to make any impact on the experience.
If there is a place where it makes a big difference, it'd be in custom maps that use slow. I can't comment on those.
Overall, I just don't see it mattering too much one way or the other. Slow's pretty strong either way.
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
This is probably same as to start discussing if slow should add +1 damage to halved damage..
units with some traits would benefit of it
but how much does it matter, thats the question..
slow is slow I never felt like something needs to be done about it... if only ladder players have an opinion on that subject it may matter for balancing..
If I was ever concerned about slow it was about how slow appears and disappears.. I can't remember correctly now, but I think it was something like this:
When enemy slows you on their turn, you are still slowed on your turn, when you slow enemy on Their turn, then enemy is not slowed on your turn..
I may be wrong, like I said, I just remembered it from somewhere... but if I'm right then it doesnt make much sense... it's kind of unfair..
even that probably never bothered me much enough to write about it =]
units with some traits would benefit of it
but how much does it matter, thats the question..
slow is slow
I never felt like something needs to be done about it... if only ladder players have an opinion on that subject it may matter for balancing..If I was ever concerned about slow it was about how slow appears and disappears.. I can't remember correctly now, but I think it was something like this:
When enemy slows you on their turn, you are still slowed on your turn, when you slow enemy on Their turn, then enemy is not slowed on your turn..
I may be wrong, like I said, I just remembered it from somewhere... but if I'm right then it doesnt make much sense... it's kind of unfair..
even that probably never bothered me much enough to write about it =]
-
Sudipta
- Posts: 217
- Joined: June 10th, 2015, 6:37 pm
- Location: Meditating under a waterfall, Heartfangs, Wesnoth
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
You're right, if u slow enemies on their turn then they get unslowed at the start of your turn. It is unfair, but nobody cares much about it. i remember raising the question in the past, didn't get much responseenclave wrote: ↑May 13th, 2018, 3:04 am If I was ever concerned about slow it was about how slow appears and disappears.. I can't remember correctly now, but I think it was something like this:
When enemy slows you on their turn, you are still slowed on your turn, when you slow enemy on Their turn, then enemy is not slowed on your turn..
I may be wrong, like I said, I just remembered it from somewhere... but if I'm right then it doesnt make much sense... it's kind of unfair..
even that probably never bothered me much enough to write about it =]
I still don't understand the point of the thread bump, tho. Dwarvenwarrior is going around reading year old posts and replying when these discussions are clearly closed.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Playing Wesnoth since 2010, still there is so much left to play
Playing Wesnoth since 2010, still there is so much left to play
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
Sudpita: Back in 2015, tekelili wrote a mod for a similar issue, and that code could probably be modified for what you suggest.
https://r.wesnoth.org/t42668
https://r.wesnoth.org/t42668
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
I think slow works quite well right now. slower units are affected more then faster units, but I guess thats how it was supposed to work.
slow should be always as dangerous. slow should be dangerous in any situation.
a different thing about slow is that, why would offensively used slow affect the slowed unit one full turn, but defensively only 1/2 of a turn.slow effect has never been correct
slow should be always as dangerous. slow should be dangerous in any situation.
stuff I worked on: Dunefolk Rework - ghype's Daily Art
-
Drainserker
- Posts: 2
- Joined: October 21st, 2017, 8:29 pm
Re: the slow effect has never been correct
The only faction that really uses slow is elves. So weakening slow would make the shaman weaker. Its already the weakest unit in the game. Units most affected by slow would be mounted units and orc/troll units, so a byproduct of weakening slow would be making orcs and loyalists stronger vs elves. Maybe could balance that by increasing shamans ranged damage or giving them a pierce ranged thorn damage.
The pillager is already pretty strong; I almost never get a knight because there are pillagers. So orcs wouldn't be weakened much.
The pillager is already pretty strong; I almost never get a knight because there are pillagers. So orcs wouldn't be weakened much.