Let's make Heavy Infantries useful!

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

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Locked
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Post by Noy »

Cold Steel wrote:
Noy wrote: No?
Why?

Could you give us some idea what situations this small change would imbalance or how it would make the HI overpowered within the loyalist faction as a whole or against any of the other factions?
Can you give me some pressing reason why it should change? No you can't, because there is no balancing need. The unit it not unbalanced, it has its uses, despite what people say here. Moreover as Dave noted in this thread we want to keep move types somewhat different within a faction, so that they aren't all "sameish." Giving them movement over mountains make them more similar to spearmen.

Finally we generally try to keep traits as a race related trait, so giving them to HI would not be proper without giving it to the rest of the human gang. Does anybody want to go back to the day of Fearless dark adepts?
No? Yeah I didn't think so either.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.
User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW »

Noy wrote:
Cold Steel wrote:Could you give us some idea what situations this small change would imbalance or how it would make the HI overpowered within the loyalist faction as a whole or against any of the other factions?
Can you give me some pressing reason why it should change? No you can't, because there is no balancing need. The unit it not unbalanced, it has its uses, despite what people say here.
Noy, you didn't really answer his question. You responded to his Q with a similar but unrelated Q:

He wanted to know why a change would be imbalancing.

You want to know why a change should be made, and state there is no imbalance.




He was asking why this is! You aren't explaining your position very well. He would like to know how to use HI with more effectiveness as to make them useful. You respond with basically "they are useful". This is not helpful to the discussion.

Perhaps if you educate people on why this is with more clarity they would not be so prone to demand changes in the balance of the game. Not only would this help them in their tactics, but it would help you to deal with less balanacing suggestions you surely don't want to listen to.
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Post by Noy »

JW wrote:
Noy wrote: Can you give me some pressing reason why it should change? No you can't, because there is no balancing need. The unit it not unbalanced, it has its uses, despite what people say here.
Noy, you didn't really answer his question. You responded to his Q with a similar but unrelated Q:

He wanted to know why a change would be imbalancing.

You want to know why a change should be made, and state there is no imbalance.


He was asking why this is! You aren't explaining your position very well. He would like to know how to use HI with more effectiveness as to make them useful. You respond with basically "they are useful". This is not helpful to the discussion.

Perhaps if you educate people on why this is with more clarity they would not be so prone to demand changes in the balance of the game. Not only would this help them in their tactics, but it would help you to deal with less balanacing suggestions you surely don't want to listen to.
Excuse me JW? He's asking for a change, and I'm giving reasons why there should not be any change. I'm not going to get into an argument about whether its imbalancing or not, because that takes time to assess and its not completely relevant to this discussion because he wants to know why it won't be changed. There are other logics involved that are not necessarily linked to balance. I gave two very clear reasons why the HI is the way it is.

#1 Its balanced
#2 It serves a unique role in the faction.

You of all people should know that we don't change things just because they are "cool" or stab at some vague perception of it being "better." We'd have all manner of sillyness in this game if that were so. All of these proposals ignore these two basic qualifications for a change. There must be some pressing need for this change, which there isn't in this case. If anything some of them would mark a significant deterioration of one of these criteria. Making it move on a mountain would make it less unique, as it would now be even more similar to spearmen.

No compelling reason to change = No change.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.
User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW »

Noy wrote:Excuse me JW? He's asking for a change, and I'm giving reasons why there should not be any change. I'm not going to get into an argument about whether its imbalancing or not, because that takes time to assess and its not completely relevant to this discussion because he wants to know why it won't be changed. There are other logics involved that are not necessarily linked to balance. I gave two very clear reasons why the HI is the way it is.

#1 Its balanced
#2 It serves a unique role in the faction.

You of all people should know that we don't change things just because they are "cool" or stab at some vague perception of it being "better." We'd have all manner of sillyness in this game if that were so. All of these proposals ignore these two basic qualifications for a change. There must be some pressing need for this change, which there isn't in this case. If anything some of them would mark a significant deterioration of one of these criteria. Making it move on a mountain would make it less unique, as it would now be even more similar to spearmen.

No compelling reason to change = No change.
Okay, I understand that and everything, but the fact is that you've ignored his query yet again.

His question was not: "why don't you make this change?"

His question was: "how would this imbalance the game?"


You are answering the first question, not the second. There is a subtle but important difference between the two Qs.
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Post by Noy »

JW wrote:
His question was not: "why don't you make this change?"

His question was: "how would this imbalance the game?"


You are answering the first question, not the second. There is a subtle but important difference between the two Qs.
No JW you're not getting it, or you're being willfully ignorant just to prove a point.

My point is that question two is irrelevant and draws me into a debate which I won't get into. If this thread was about just question two then maybe I might answer the question. But its not about question two, its about question one of which question two is a subset of. Its as pointless as asking me whether an 20 HP bat that does 1-1 damage for 5 gold is unbalanced. No, but whats the point? I'm not going to get into the minutia of debate when the overall question has been answered.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.
User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW »

Actually, I've been speaking with grr on the server and he told me it was a mistake to word his query the way he did. He meant to ask #2 but instead seemingly asked #1. You couldn't have known this I guess though. Sure.


I'm in the middle of typing up a suggestion that I hope you seriously consider though. It'll be done in a few short minutes.
User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW »

I was wondering....is there a good reason for the HI's negative resistance to Fire?

The units this affects:
1) Drakes
2) Mages (Rebels & Loyals)
3) Orc Archer

1) The HI is already dead against Drakes. Increasing his fire resist would only help him die more slowly. No imbalance here.

2) Against Loyalists this wouldn't imbalance as HI could still be countered with your own HI, even if Mages didn't already do enough damage at day.

Against Rebels, Mages are still useful to tear through, but just a little less effective. Increasing fire resist from -10 to 0 would have these effects here (and just to list more info, even at 10%):

day: 10-3 to 9-3 (or 8-3)
dusk: 8-3 to 7-3 (or 6-3)
night: 5-3 to 5-3 (or 5-3)

Little effect at 0%, but non-negligible. Going to 10% would probably be too far as it would decrease the Mages' effectiveness too much. Rebels still have the Wose that defeats the HI 1v1, and Archers that can plink away at the non-mobile HI from forest. I don't think an increase to 0% would increase his effectiveness v. Rebels too much.

3) Orcs Archers:

An increase to 0% here may be the only potential problem. Damages for orc archer:

day: 5-2 to 5-2
dusk: 8-2 to 7-2
night: 10-2 to 9-2

Their usefulness is only cut by 2 points at night/dusk, but archers are the primary damage dealers to HI in this matchup. I don't think this would cause too great of an imbalance, as assassins can still poison and archers are still effective. Also, grunts and whelps can still easily trap.

If anything, this is the only matchup that would need to be further investigated with regard to this change. I don't think it would imbalance too much, but it would increase the HI's general effectiveness in areas where he is currently weak.

Thoughts?
Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Post by Mabuse »

.. so loyalist wars is now about spamming HI ... ;)

nahh, dont like it.

seriously theres no need to change HI. maybe make it cost 1 gold less. thats all. i can live with out having it for 19 gold though also
name
Posts: 427
Joined: January 6th, 2008, 3:32 am

Post by name »

Noy wrote:Can you give me some pressing reason why it should change?
I already gave you a reason and it was in compliance with the faction-vs-faction balancing theory.

I said the loyalist faction seems to be weaker than all the other factions when it comes to mountainous terrain, because three of its units, one of which is the impact wielder, cannot access mountains at all.

That is not fair for the loyalists because none of the other factions really has so much of their army completely blocked by and unable to access mountains. It is especially a major problem if you are fighting undead in the hills, as then the mage is your only effective weapon against the skeletons and mages are cut down very fast in melee with limited defensive retaliation.

It is not like deep water where everyone has one unit or a few (drakes and undead) which can do a good job of holding their own against the others, and the main forces cannot engage in this environment. In mountains, most every unit wielding most every attack type and resistance can access the hills, except for the loyalists, whose impact unit and heavily resistant units are out of play (an entire 3 units total).

Mountains are not like lava or pits where loyalists have a severe disadvantage in that they have no flyers, because these are heavily imbalanced tiles for most factions that are almost never used in a real mp map. Mountains are everywhere, they are a major component of maps, the knalgan faction is even very mountain-specific.
The unit it not unbalanced, it has its uses, despite what people say here.
I use them in almost every battle, I know their uses and find them to be close to balanced, in a game that is very close to balanced. But as you have already said in a few threads I think, units are not balanced against each other, factions are balanced against each other. And without a real impact wielder or resistant punishment-taker unit in the mountains, the loyalists are at an unfair disadvantage against the rest in a common terrain tile.
Moreover as Dave noted in this thread we want to keep move types somewhat different within a faction, so that they aren't all "sameish."
Well the way it is now, they are "sameish" with both loyalist calvary units. And, they are perhaps the most unique unit within the loyalist army (along with the mage) taken as a whole and the only loyalist unit that moves as slow as 4 mp.
Giving them movement over mountains make them more similar to spearmen.
But spearmen don't have Impact! And they are weak. They are not comparable units. Spearmen and Mermish Fighters yes, but not spear and heavy. And again, spearmen are crap against skeletons.
Finally we generally try to keep traits as a race related trait, so giving them to HI would not be proper without giving it to the rest of the human gang. Does anybody want to go back to the day of Fearless dark adepts?
No? Yeah I didn't think so either.
No argument here, fearless wouldn't solve anything and I am not a huge trait fan in the first place.
whatnoth
Posts: 21
Joined: December 11th, 2006, 1:43 pm

Post by whatnoth »

Noy wrote:
Cold Steel wrote: Why?

Could you give us some idea what situations this small change would imbalance or how it would make the HI overpowered within the loyalist faction as a whole or against any of the other factions?
Can you give me some pressing reason why it should change? No you can't, because there is no balancing need. The unit it not unbalanced, it has its uses, despite what people say here. Moreover as Dave noted in this thread we want to keep move types somewhat different within a faction, so that they aren't all "sameish." Giving them movement over mountains make them more similar to spearmen.
i dont really understand this. pretty much all land units can move over mountains, and everything that can move over a mountain has equal or better mountain defense than grassland. thats across every single faction, virtually every single land unit. seems rather "sameish." this is as opposed to tree terrain, which helps some units a lot, helps most units a little, helps some units not at all, and hurts some units. with mountains, everything except mermish and loyalist horse units can travel over them.

if you want to do what dave is suggesting, 'making elves very strong in the forrest and terrible out of the forrest,' why bother giving virtually every land unit, including the naga, mountain access, but not the heavy infantry? especially when the heavy has such poor movement that he always gets stuck against a mountain, and cannot escape when facing an unfavorable matchup, let alone use the terrain advantageously?

***danger. cross-factional unit comparison ahead***

the HI doesnt tank nearly as well for most purposes as a wose, guardsman, clasher, maybe not even a troll if enough turns go by and the regen comes into play. on top of that, the heavy's ability to enter and exit combat to serve his "niche function" should be best described as "remedial." just because its a tank doesnt mean you have to leave it to die.

hey, does anyone think human horse units should have 50% grassland because they have absolutely horrid defense everywhere else, unlike wolves, elf scouts, fliers, and pretty much every other highly mobile unit? go ahead and adjust the hp if you want, but i think a mounted unit in the plains should have some premiere defense.
whatnoth
Posts: 21
Joined: December 11th, 2006, 1:43 pm

Post by whatnoth »

It is not like deep water where everyone has one unit or a few (drakes and undead) which can do a good job of holding their own against the others, and the main forces cannot engage in this environment. In mountains, most every unit wielding most every attack type and resistance can access the hills, except for the loyalists, whose impact unit and heavily resistant units are out of play (an entire 3 units total).

Mountains are not like lava or pits where loyalists have a severe disadvantage in that they have no flyers, because these are heavily imbalanced tiles for most factions that are almost never used in a real mp map. Mountains are everywhere, they are a major component of maps, the knalgan faction is even very mountain-specific.
this seems to be what is missing here. no one gets "trapped" or "stuck" in deep water, or against deep water. its normal for deep water to be set far out of the way of normal combat lanes. but mountains are everywwhere, virtually all land units use them, and all units that use them have good defense there. then suddenly, you have this unit with 4 movement, 3x hills and no mountain movement. borderline unusable. to the heavy infantry, mountainous terrain looks like chasm terrain to any other land unit, except instead of chasms which no one can use, every other unit can use the mountain, which is just a giant obstacle to path around or be pinned against.
User avatar
Noyga
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1790
Joined: September 26th, 2005, 5:56 pm
Location: France

Post by Noyga »

whatnoth wrote:]i dont really understand this. pretty much all land units can move over mountains, and everything that can move over a mountain has equal or better mountain defense than grassland. thats across every single faction, virtually every single land unit. seems rather "sameish." this is as opposed to tree terrain, which helps some units a lot, helps most units a little, helps some units not at all, and hurts some units. with mountains, everything except mermish and loyalist horse units can travel over them.
Can you explain why a HI should move better on a mountain than a Horse rider ?
"Ooh, man, my mage had a 30% chance to miss, but he still managed to hit! Awesome!" ;) -- xtifr
User avatar
Aethaeryn
Translator
Posts: 1553
Joined: September 15th, 2007, 10:21 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Post by Aethaeryn »

Noyga wrote:
whatnoth wrote:]i dont really understand this. pretty much all land units can move over mountains, and everything that can move over a mountain has equal or better mountain defense than grassland. thats across every single faction, virtually every single land unit. seems rather "sameish." this is as opposed to tree terrain, which helps some units a lot, helps most units a little, helps some units not at all, and hurts some units. with mountains, everything except mermish and loyalist horse units can travel over them.
Can you explain why a HI should move better on a mountain than a Horse rider ?
Horse riders have high MP and mobility, which excuses this lack of mobility.
Aethaeryn (User Page)
Wiki Moderator (wiki)
Latin Translator [wiki=Latin Translation](wiki)[/wiki]
Maintainer of Thunderstone Era (wiki) and Aethaeryn's Maps [wiki=Aethaeryn's Maps](wiki)[/wiki]
whatnoth
Posts: 21
Joined: December 11th, 2006, 1:43 pm

Post by whatnoth »

Noyga wrote:
whatnoth wrote:]i dont really understand this. pretty much all land units can move over mountains, and everything that can move over a mountain has equal or better mountain defense than grassland. thats across every single faction, virtually every single land unit. seems rather "sameish." this is as opposed to tree terrain, which helps some units a lot, helps most units a little, helps some units not at all, and hurts some units. with mountains, everything except mermish and loyalist horse units can travel over them.
Can you explain why a HI should move better on a mountain than a Horse rider ?
can you explain why a fish creature such as a naga can move over a mountain x5, have 40% defense there (more than a heavy in grass) with 2 movement points to spare (7 base)? why can an elf on a horse get 60% in mountains and humans on horses cannot pass them at all? these are pressing questions.

my non-realist answer is "you limited the human horse units from mountains for balance reasons." so, why is the heavy limited from mountains? balance reasons? i would like to hear what would go terribly wrong if the heavy had x3 or x4 mountain movement and 40% defense there, because i can tell you what is going wrong currently without being able to pass mountains: the unit is a meatbag for the majority of enemy creatures.
Martinus
Posts: 138
Joined: May 28th, 2005, 8:19 pm

Post by Martinus »

So if HI will be able to cross mountains at 1 tile per turn he won't be a meatbag to other units?
Locked