the poacher needs balancing

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
joshudson
Posts: 501
Joined: January 17th, 2006, 8:04 pm
Contact:

Post by joshudson »

If I were to change anything (and this is not so likely)
* Trapper defense in swamp 60%
* Trapper defense in forest 70%

Trapper not random leader (rogue is better as leader in most cases where you normally want trapper).
No change to poacher.
CHKDSK has repaired bad sectors in CHKDSK.EXE
Weeksy
Posts: 1017
Joined: January 29th, 2007, 1:05 am
Location: Oregon

Post by Weeksy »

problem is, that leaves you with just 3 possible choices for knalgan random leaders, 2 of which have only 4 mp. Is there something wrong with adding the Bandit as a knalgan leader, if just to make it so there are 4 randoms?
If enough people bang their heads against a brick wall, The brick wall will fall down
User avatar
Haibane
Posts: 154
Joined: June 15th, 2006, 6:38 am
Location: Old Home, Guri

Post by Haibane »

joshudson wrote:If I were to change anything (and this is not so likely)
* Trapper defense in swamp 60%
* Trapper defense in forest 70%
Uh, you must be kidding :shock:

That's not balancing, that's transformation of trapper into swamp elf. I don't see any reason why knalgans should have ranged unit with elvish defense in forest and village defense in swamp (not mentioning how he would do it, diving into swamp and sometimes shooting from there, something like tactical submarine ?).

Leave forest for elves and swamps for water creatures, even if trapper really needs some improvement (dunno), this is wrong way.
I don't want to change trapper to fit leader role, I just want to remove him from it.

Btw may I missed something Weeksy, but Knalgans still have 5 leaders, which one is not random now ? And isn't bandit just trade of one bad leader for another bad one ?
If it's all a dream, now wake me up. If it's all real, just kill me.
Weeksy
Posts: 1017
Joined: January 29th, 2007, 1:05 am
Location: Oregon

Post by Weeksy »

the L2 guardsman isn't random, and if it were it'd be even worse in the way of lack-of-moves leaders. Also, I don't see bandit as nearly the horrible leader a trapper is (And I don't see the trapper as that bad either) when you have swordsman damage, albeit without a bit of blade resist, and a damage that more things have weaknesses to.
If enough people bang their heads against a brick wall, The brick wall will fall down
Beholder
Posts: 169
Joined: January 30th, 2007, 4:20 am

Post by Beholder »

Weeksy wrote:the L2 guardsman isn't random, and if it were it'd be even worse in the way of lack-of-moves leaders. Also, I don't see bandit as nearly the horrible leader a trapper is (And I don't see the trapper as that bad either) when you have swordsman damage, albeit without a bit of blade resist, and a damage that more things have weaknesses to.
No unit in the game move worse then the HI. Even the Wose moves better.
nebula955
Posts: 82
Joined: March 1st, 2007, 2:33 am

Post by nebula955 »

the hi does damage......the guardsman does not.....albeit they both suck. is hi still a random leader in 1.3? and tbh a rogue isnt that good of a leader either.....weak damage unless you backstab and if you backstab you are often behind enemy lines....dangerous place for a rogue.
EDIT: you ought not take guardsman with no damage literally, but being as it's not more damaging than a level 1 and less durable when attacking...
Last edited by nebula955 on September 27th, 2007, 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jetrel
Art Director
Posts: 7242
Joined: February 23rd, 2004, 3:36 am
Location: Midwest US

Post by Jetrel »

nebula955 wrote:the hi does damage......the guardsman does not.....
What?
User avatar
Doc Paterson
Drake Cartographer
Posts: 1973
Joined: February 21st, 2005, 9:37 pm
Location: Kazakh
Contact:

Post by Doc Paterson »

Jetryl wrote:
nebula955 wrote:the hi does damage......the guardsman does not.....
What?
It has a 0-3 melee attack.
I will not tell you my corner / where threads don't get locked because of mostly no reason /
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses.
-Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme
Nebiros
Posts: 86
Joined: July 24th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA

Post by Nebiros »

nebula955 wrote:tbh a rogue isnt that good of a leader either.....weak damage unless you backstab and if you backstab you are often behind enemy lines....dangerous place for a rogue.
Rogues have skirmish though. And you can send a friend (like a cheap footpad or thief) behind enemy lines to avoid going there yourself. Anyway, I find that when I use my leader in direct combat it is often because an enemy is behind *my* lines, which may make it easy to pincer with one other unit (especially something fast like a footpad or gryphon) and get backstab.

I don't think either the rogue or the trapper is such a bad leader that it is unfair compared to other random leaders. Both are versatile units that can counterattack anything, have good defenses and mobility and can often do some damage with minimal retaliation. There's more to the game than who does the most direct damage, otherwise the ranger, the javelineer and many other units would have to be considered "weak" too.


There's one leader that I am often disappointed to get randomly and that's the orcish slayer. Low HP, negative resistances and (unlike the rogue) no way to get away - and the enemy may be undead, making it a unit I wouldn't have chosen to ever recruit in that matchup. And for all that it still doesn't do much damage - just poison which is often too slow to save a leader's skin. The slayer isn't a big upgrade from the assassin in the first place (IMO; I prefer to level other units when I have a choice) and to have him as leader just underlines the fact.
Fred
Posts: 42
Joined: July 29th, 2007, 7:22 am
Location: Washington

Post by Fred »

Doc Paterson wrote:
Jetryl wrote: What?
It has a 0-3 melee attack.
what do you mean by that? I thought that the guardsman had a 5-3 melee attack and a 5 or 6-1 ranged attack. So how would the guardsman do no damage at all?
If you have to ask.......
User avatar
Vendanna
Posts: 624
Joined: September 16th, 2006, 10:07 pm
Location: Spain

Post by Vendanna »

Fred wrote:what do you mean by that? I thought that the guardsman had a 5-3 melee attack and a 5 or 6-1 ranged attack. So how would the guardsman do no damage at all?
I love the smell of irony on the morning... it smells like victory.

Of course it does damage, what the other user is saying is that it doesn't do the damage he expects it to do for a leader.
"Mysteries are revealed in the light of reason."
Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Post by Velensk »

Stalwarts do 7-3 and 8-1 definately not par for a lvl 2. On the other hand the stalwart is one leader that is ussualy safe to place in the front line and bait enemies with, as long as you take prcautions.

On the whole though I agree that Stalwart is not as nice a leader as some of the others.
"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."
Blarumyrran
Art Contributor
Posts: 1700
Joined: December 7th, 2006, 8:08 pm

Post by Blarumyrran »

On the other hand the stalwart is one leader that is ussualy safe to place in the front line and bait enemies with, as long as you take prcautions.
while he is in front line, you cant recruit anything. add it to the low mp and you get a unit whos gotta stay at the throne all the time. leaders should have ass-kicking attacks, so that they can show up, do their stuff and get back to the throne, imo. rogue is thus my favorite leader in the game. but staying on a hill and waiting? thats not really fit for a king :P
Beholder
Posts: 169
Joined: January 30th, 2007, 4:20 am

Post by Beholder »

Syntax_Error wrote:
On the other hand the stalwart is one leader that is ussualy safe to place in the front line and bait enemies with, as long as you take prcautions.
while he is in front line, you cant recruit anything. add it to the low mp and you get a unit whos gotta stay at the throne all the time. leaders should have ass-kicking attacks, so that they can show up, do their stuff and get back to the throne, imo. rogue is thus my favorite leader in the game. but staying on a hill and waiting? thats not really fit for a king :P
This is a important point. Slow leaders see little actual battle.
User avatar
BIG_LIZARD_PWNZ
Posts: 24
Joined: September 14th, 2006, 5:08 pm

Post by BIG_LIZARD_PWNZ »

Beholder wrote: This is a important point. Slow leaders see little actual battle.
k1nd 0f l1ke u!

LOLOLOLOLERZ

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
PWND.
Post Reply