Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

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

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

Mabuse wrote:nah, it is simple enough. or do you wanna tell me that conquest is just played by a bunch of idiots.
I want to tell you what I expressed several times in this thread: Conquest stresses strategy over tactics and this makes it interesting. With the standard Wesnoth (which has very complicated tactical rules) you could never get such strategical battles on large maps like Surdmark for example.

Simpler rules usually mean a deeper game: Go/baduk/weiqi has very simple rules and really is NOT played by a bunch of idiots.
in fact the damage which is taken less (by a +15% add to the defense) depend a lot on the "original" terrain they stand on: for example, the step from 40% def to 55% def is a damage reduction of 25%, the step from 60% to 75% is a reduction of 37.5 %. so we dont have a -15% damage taken, infact the damage reduction is a lot higher than 15% and is increasing with a higher base terrain)
This is why I suggested the fortifying should cause equal bonus for all units.
Your system causes less damage reduction for a unit on a 40% defense, more reduction for a 50% defense, even more reduction for a 60% defense, and smallest reduction for a 70% defense.
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

SlowThinker wrote:I want to tell you what I expressed several times in this thread: Conquest stresses strategy over tactics and this makes it interesting. With the standard Wesnoth (which has very complicated tactical rules) you could never get such strategical battles on large maps like Surdmark for example.

Simpler rules usually mean a deeper game: Go/baduk/weiqi has very simple rules and really is NOT played by a bunch of idiots.
you dont want to tell me that the ability to fortify units (= making them stationary, defensive units (which are clearly marked by an overlay symbol), by right clicking on them (which can still attack nearby units, on the following turns though)) will make the tactical rules extremely complicated and/or reduce the amount of strategical deepness ?

the alternative is to invent a 20gold, 4 move unit with standard infantry defenses and 275HP, 55-5 (275) damage (could aso kill a general on 60% versus 40% def terrain, so its extremely strong). that reduces the amount of possibilities for the other types of infantry though. imo, infantry should have of course the advantage to prepare and use defenses

(FYI edit: since a defensive 20 gold is way too strong (it may kil genrals also in a 60% def vs. 40% def battle), a defensive 15 gold unit is theoretically better. stats would be 225 HP and 32-6 damage - however, this unit is unfortuanately a bit weak against grand knight and lacks its sense then (why buying a def unit if if cannot defend anyways). making the lieutenant (and other infantry along with it) able to fortify is just the slight tweak we need to have a def unit that can beat knights and die to generals - also we dont need more units then, and infantry gets more interesting)

and simpler rules dont nessessarily mean a deeper game.
(for that reason we already did quite some changes, for example your example "go" or "chess" is always played on the same board - still you play also other maps than the standard europe map in conquest)

often the lack of options mean a less interesting and repetitive game.
that is the reason why you want to invent a high-class def unit in first place: since the "wining player" can simply mass some grand knights and rule everything, while def players have nothing on their hand to stop them.

however, being able to fortify units is so simple that it 100% fits within the conquest gameplay. its a good thing to be able to defend more effectively with less bucks on the hand.
if you want to do so.

i think the fortify thing is great since it is a extremely simple thing which offers a lot of possibilties though (a good example of a simple rule wich add a lot of depth, just like in the game´s you mentioned)
SlowThinker wrote:
in fact the damage which is taken less (by a +15% add to the defense) depend a lot on the "original" terrain they stand on: for example, the step from 40% def to 55% def is a damage reduction of 25%, the step from 60% to 75% is a reduction of 37.5 %. so we dont have a -15% damage taken, infact the damage reduction is a lot higher than 15% and is increasing with a higher base terrain)
This is why I suggested the fortifying should cause equal bonus for all units.
Your system causes less damage reduction for a unit on a 40% defense, more reduction for a 50% defense, even more reduction for a 60% defense, and smallest reduction for a 70% defense.
but you are aware that this is absolutely intended, right ?
of course if you fortify (= set up some defenses) on open ground your effort is not as effective than if you fortify/set up defenses in a city or similar good defense positions.

fortify is most useful on high def terrains.

btw, and of course you are completely wrong with "and smallest reduction for a 70% defense"
- even if dwarves cannot get higher than "extremely good defense" (which is capped at 75% for gameplay purposes), they still have the best available defense if they fortify in mountains ;).
so if you plan to set up a def in mountains, even dwarves do good to fortify there.
they dont lose anything due to fortifying. its just that they cannot get better than "extremely good" (the damage reduction from 70% def and 75% def is about 17% - so its 17% more or less damage - choice is up to the dwarves player.)



also: just reduce the damage by 15% is pointless, since it wont allow the lieutenant to defend (while on a city) versus a knight. and so its comepletely useless.
but one of the goals is to create a possibility to defend with a cheaper unit versus a knight in good circumstances.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

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

Re: WML code

Post by Mabuse »

Lich_Lord wrote: Ahh, did realize that it'd cause increased lag, here is one that won't be so bad, and will fill all villages in my super map, which will come out after I add a couple stronger units, to make up for the higher incomes people will have.
btw, i dont think that adding stronger units is a good thing.
because it doesnt lead to anything.

the next thing is somebody makes a 200x200 map and then we need "even stronger units"
general is and will stay the most strongest unit in the game.
there is no discussion about that

i would rather think about reducing territory boni and perhaps deleting the one or other city. ;)
if the income on your new map is too high

also with bunches of fortified lieutenants, marshals and assasins i think the high income battles are interesting enough.

well, maybe we need a defensive 20 gold unit still.
along with fortify ability the shock trooper with its bad basic defenses (village def would be increased from 40% to 50% though) would be an option, since with fortify its defense on a village is 65% which makes him dangerous even against marshals (you would have to sacrifice a marshal to leave him extremely badly wounded)

so a shock trooper with 275HP, 275 (55-5) damage and 4 moves get added too.


the other standard races have also to be a bit balanced, making slyph fortifyable (has 75% in village then) also would make the elves already good enough (extremely good in defense to be exact) (all inf will be able to get fortified)

making trolls fortifyable is great also, village def wil get raised to 50% though (65% if fortified)
(all orc inf can be fortified)

armageddon drake fortifyable (it then has 55% def on village if fortified)
(all drake units can be fortified (exception sky drakes and other scouts))

undead ... hmm, the 20 gold ghost is already good enough ;)
and ghost wont be able to fortify.
(all inf will be able to get fortified)

they may get a 20 gold def unit though, a skeletal dragon
the ususal 275 hp, 55-5 damage, 4 moves (it has 50% def in village (65% if fortified))


dwarven spiders wil be able to fortify also
(all inf will be able to get fortified)

kalifa may get also some kind of defnsive shock trooper
(all inf will be able to get fortified)

also the whole kalifa units need to get incorporated into the conquest add-on, no dependency with other add-ons
(also i may check if you used the proper vl units for their equivalents its important that 1 - 3 gold units are lvl1, 4 - 8 gold are lvl2, 9 - 15 gold is lvl3, 20 gold units may vary (lvl3 or 4), 25 gold is lvl4


this really should be enough, and the only thing i can recommend is not to exxagarate new maps, in any case the game will not be balanced after newly created maps, instead, new map should be created with care. i dont see a really reason for 180 villages for example.

wesnoth map has 2397 sqare tiles and about 60 villages, sudmark has 6200 sqare tiles and 180 villages. so the vilage concentration on sudmark is higher. you should think about deleting 20 to 30 villages and reduce also the territory boni partially.



EDIT@ LICH LORD:
--------------------

btw@ LICH LORD i see you aded in a number (900) for the village distribution, i see that you couldnt know, but the code just needs a minmal alteration to allow to use the number you already set in the SCN (GAME_MODE 181). i will fix that problem tomorrow, along with the other changes.

so pls wait for updates
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 537
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gwledig »

hi Mabuse feel free to add in whatever you want from my conquest efforts of course I only did this stuff a week or two ago and am still tweaking, theres a lot of stuff which tries to be interesting rather than balanced, like the beastmasters with tiers of leadership for beasts, the bard which does a similar thing for all human allies, theres also the Magus with teleport, which is not used very much. I'm thinking about giving a limited summon ability to the magus (not on villages/ low tier only) and give the worker ability to make defensive walls, though I think this would also need a counter-unit to destroy them.
I'm trying to get on-the-fly recruitment to work, it looks like its possible using a unique variable then filtering on this when applying on-the-fly stats to the new unit.

Incidently, you'll notice my new units use a kind of 'clean slate' genetic template, it just wipes all specials, abilities, and sets values instead of + / - them, kind of mimicing what you can do with unit_type

Just thining about the Kalifa, how would you make these work without another addon, the images/animations can't be 'shipped' with the conquest addon, you can't even send a single image to the client to use as an overlay, unless the client downloads the whole conquest pack or ageless era. I was thinking of making a very simple 'resources' pack which included some basic images to use as overlays, like Roman faction and the Caravel (e.g. users who don't have conquest installed themselves only see a basic boat not the caravel).

I'm a fan of fortify from RTS games, it's a well tested feature of those games. What is intertesting is the reaction of players to new ideas and I mean established conquest players like wtf, C4, 13, Condor, Solange, it seems they view some changes as 'cosmetic' which add a fun element but don't affect the basic gameplay and concepts like regions & bonus, but see other changes as being a major removal from conques and don't like these. Most people are indifferent or were happy about the 2-3 outlaw outposts, these didn't break or change the gameplay in any way, aside from altering the vila layout and balance as it affected layout... there was a slight change in because these were outside bonuses, they were seen as a resource which wasnt essential to own but desirable so they featured in bargaining over swaps/naps. The same thing happened when I replaced some outposts with merchants, and it didnt affect gameplay much as the upgrades were mostly not OP (apart from flight maybe). Other ideas get a mixed reception, some people hate the idea of defensive walls... personally i think its worth 'trying' stuff to see how it works, for example the magus is looking like a flop but the new factions seem pretty popular especially the Europe 300AD map (mostly due to novel units and a decent map people are familiar with). I think the empire/ superbonus was a big change, and made the game more agressive, but the fundamental gameplay was the same, though the map needs balancing more especially for realm mode.
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

Gwledig wrote: Just thining about the Kalifa, how would you make these work without another addon, the images/animations can't be 'shipped' with the conquest addon, you can't even send a single image to the client to use as an overlay, unless the client downloads the whole conquest pack or ageless era. I was thinking of making a very simple 'resources' pack which included some basic images to use as overlays, like Roman faction and the Caravel (e.g. users who don't have conquest installed themselves only see a basic boat not the caravel).
of course you need to have the conquest add on installed then, in order to be able to play the "Conquest Kalifa" (the unit ID'S wil also get slightly changed, so that there will be no problems with potencial changes in the future to the AE_Kalifa)

the basic idea was to make conquest an add on that only uses mainline stuff. this was slighty broken by the new images of the caravel and the dhow.

BUT: If we are going to add extra gfx (and i have a ton of extra GFX, gathered from the forum and other sources (well, mainly from the forum, and already existing add ons, and as weill slightly changed gfx)) over a long period of time) and new units, they will be included in the conques add on. you dont want to tell useres who want to play your maps for example that they need to download conquest and aditionally a random bunch of other add-ons.

about the resources pack: this can be all included in the conquest uload, its the best solution to have it all in one, rather than having dozens of packs to download.

so since lich lord started adding new non-mainline units, i guess we have to
1) come to the conclusion that its probably not a good idea and discrad it
2) go the full way and put it all into the conquest upload.
Gwledig wrote: I'm a fan of fortify from RTS games, it's a well tested feature of those games. What is intertesting is the reaction of players to new ideas and I mean established conquest players like wtf, C4, 13, Condor, Solange, it seems they view some changes as 'cosmetic' which add a fun element but don't affect the basic gameplay and concepts like regions & bonus, but see other changes as being a major removal from conques and don't like these.
well. many new things went against some resistance of established players. for example there was a time when capitol mode was seen as soemthing bad, because they were all used to the old "all random" gameplay.

some people even said conquest was better with just the 3 basic units (well, it was not, is all i can say about it).
if i would always have heard to ALL the people then conquest would never develope, because in general people fear new things, as it may change the way they actually play the game. on the other hand a constructive discussion is always good, and my goal is also to keep conquest the game it is, just with a slight tad of more choices

all i can say about that, that i dont intend to add some random crap, which wil make conquest "different". instead, i try to implement small features that simply "enrichen" the game and the gameplay, without changing it a lot


about fortify:
----------------
ah well, the fortify thingy is a good thing to have, which will strenghen the defensive options of players.

MORE DETAILS:
-----------------
btw, after some more thoughts how the FORTIFY thingy SHOULD WORK, i have come to the conclusion that fortified units CANNOT ATTACK AS LONG THEY ARE FORTIFIED.

they get their attack back, if they UNFORTIFY (TO be able to FORTIFY you have to be able to attack still.)

so it works like this:
1) right click on a unit, which is fitted with the fortify ability
2) if it has a least 1 move left and 1 attack left, you can fortify it.
2.)b)fortify grants your unit +15% defense, but it wil lose all remaing moves (for that round), and cannot attack as long it is fortified (= it loses also its attack)
3) on a new turn a fortified unit gets 2 moves, but no attack
(with these 2 moves it is able to leave a city and go back on it if wanted, or simply move a bit around)
4) if a unit is fortified, you cannot fortify it again, but you can unfortify it.
upon unfortify, it immediatly gets +1 attack and loses its defense bonus
4)b) on a new turn unfortified units react like any othr normal unt (gets back full moves and 1 attack)

i made fortified units unattackabale, becasue
1) logic: they leave their fortified positions to attack
2)gameplay: since it should be a simple feature, which dont effect any other thing beside that a single unit can be used as a stronger blocker, i didnt wanted it to be exploitable for offenses (get in 2 hex range of target and fortify, then attack on next turn) , which would have has major (and bad) effect on the gameplay (every good offense would be lead by fortified units then ...

this may sound complicated but it will work very easy in the game, simply fortify and unfortify at willl, what happens will be always told in the menu.

also if you hove over the "fortify"-ability in the unit, there will be a small desription how to use it.
Gwledig wrote: Most people are indifferent or were happy about the 2-3 outlaw outposts, these didn't break or change the gameplay in any way, aside from altering the vila layout and balance as it affected layout... there was a slight change in because these were outside bonuses, they were seen as a resource which wasnt essential to own but desirable so they featured in bargaining over swaps/naps. The same thing happened when I replaced some outposts with merchants, and it didnt affect gameplay much as the upgrades were mostly not OP (apart from flight maybe). Other ideas get a mixed reception, some people hate the idea of defensive walls... personally i think its worth 'trying' stuff to see how it works, for example the magus is looking like a flop but the new factions seem pretty popular especially the Europe 300AD map (mostly due to novel units and a decent map people are familiar with). I think the empire/ superbonus was a big change, and made the game more agressive, but the fundamental gameplay was the same, though the map needs balancing more especially for realm mode.

just one note about the WALLS
atm i dont plan to make workers able to build defensive structures
since this woudl probably require a lot more micromanagemant and is more time consuming
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

@Gledwig:

well, one last note about your "beastmen", since i just skimmed shortly through the beginning of your recruitment file.

of course its clear that a 30% leadership is way to high.
or any other leadership that effect ALL units on your side.
a general with 30% more damage (and some of your beastman give 40% leadership) wil kil any other general, and that just because he sits beside a 5 gold unit. a general with a 30% damage bonus has 58-8 which is about 464 damage

but then again, i had an idea. as i first read that leadership thingy, i thought you would FILTER for units of only that type. which would give interesting options. imagine roman legionaires that give othr legionaire types a +10% damage boost. so if you keep your legions tightly together they will benefit from that.

i also think that "clear it all" tepmplate you use in your units is good and ok to have.

i see that you are quite creative and think of many new things that could increase the tactical useage of units.

there are some balance probems of course,
also, thats only for the "beastmen", i dont like the concept of that "race". i mean come on, a civ that conatains mages, bats and whatnot - it simply looks like you randomly thrown all units from the "onsters" folder together, and doesnt seem to fit nor makes parctical sense to me.

for that reason i need deeper look, and, in case i may add something into the conquest pack, i may make slight balance changes here and there.

but we can discuss it all if you like.
in any case your creativity is welcomed, and there are good ideas, that can be exploited in future maps for sure.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 537
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gwledig »

thanks Mabuse

yes I was casting about a bit on the beastmasters... I agree the leadership is high but it only effects "monsters" so as well as this 'faction' it would apply to other 'creatures' such as the Rift bat. It's not really just mages and beasts but 'beastmasters' like druids who influence their beasts, who are filtered to fight better when alongside their 'masters', this leadership only applies to beasts and not all allies or even other beastmasters (as they are human). This is different to the human general which effects all allies, or the Celt Bard, which affects only humans.

I agree its probably too high but I was planning on watching some games and seeing how players react, if you have say 10% leadership for a low level unit the effect is pretty neglibible, like +2 dam on a 12 dam attack, noone was bothering to use the concept of beasts alongside their 'masters'... however when I increased the tiers they started using it so I wanted to get the balance right.

Edit #2 on yes, I was also thinking of giving the beastmasters a 'shapeshifter' maybe the start sprite is a basic saurian, and can turn into various creatures by right-clicking, a cavalry, a fighter or a pike type unit, maybe once per day..

Wesnoth core has pretty limited sprites so I ended up using anything available.. it could be expanded a little using some of the wierder ones like soulless merman etc. this would give the beasts a wierder and more varied faction.

Incidently I also came up with a way of recruiting for 'summoners' which I believe is the simplest version I have seen, for on the fly recruitment, so a mage could summon a 'familiar' it involves making a random variable and applying this to the unit ID, then if another one gets summoned later there's no conflict. Not sure how much use this is right now, the on-the-fly stats for the new unit are filtered on this unique ID instead of the usual X,Y location.

Just thinking about the leadership stuff I added several 'special' abilities for some units like what you describe

* the Celtic Defender (Celts) has a repulse skill, +5 dam on defense, but slightly less hard than a pike. Celts expand v fast but are less damaging, so this allows them to hold ground, fitting in with the theme of Celts defending their ancient territory..

* The Feudal noble swordsman has the reverse offensive skill 'fury'

* The Feudal pikeman has "Phalanx" (and probably needs nerfing somewhere to compensate for this skill) so when clustered they fight better like the phalanx did... (Edit yes I was making a rome faction with a testedo skill like this but then figured it would need ageless or a pack..)

and other experimental skills like a slightly weaker Feudal general/ Rift uber cavalry but has 'fear' (minus damage from surrounding enemies), also probably needs nerf.

There are also some other skills floating around, some try to compensate for stuff like the 2 Celtic cavalry (scouts) have weaker attacks, due to +1 movement, but they also have "salve" to heal a little.

I've been messing with games development on and off for years all the way from the old 8 bits, my main problem is I'm not a natural programmer, but I try...
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

2.8.0 (not yet uploaded)

changes done so far:


- fixed that 900 villages thingy (by actually using the number which is set in the "game_mode XYZ" macro, which is set in each SCN file, and which should contain the number of villages on a map

- reduced the randomizied ai units code as slowthinker suggested "(variable garrison $random)" instead of a ton of if then thingies.

- reduced amount of XP needed for a veteran rank from 16 to 12

- implemented fortify for all infantry type units
(except worker, militia, assassin, general)

- reduced movement of some infantry units (from 7 to 8)
(all lieutenents and all 20 gld units which got fortify ability)

- dwarven/spider mountain defense is set to 65%
(but fortify will fully kick in and raise dwarf mountain def to 80%)

- lieutenant dwarf has only 6 moves

- troll city def set to 50%



right now im actually coding fortify ability, progress is good, unfortuanately i must go sleep now, tomorrow or in 2 days more progress (dont know how things look like tommorrow.

atm i got a bit carried away by looking for menu items, but i guess we dont need menu items anyway.

ah well, and the shock trooper (for humans and kalifas (which need a 20g infantry (=village defendeer of some kind)) also need to get added still. (wil get 50% def on villages (and is able to fortify)
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

Mabuse wrote:btw, i dont think that adding stronger units is a good thing.
because it doesnt lead to anything.
the next thing is somebody makes a 200x200 map and then we need "even stronger units"
general is and will stay the most strongest unit in the game.
there is no discussion about that
But Lich wants to add them. So now you can see your idea of 3 people responsible for the Conquest development is not very wise, as your changes may be contradictory.
that is the reason why you want to invent a high-class def unit in first place: since the "wining player" can simply mass some grand knights and rule everything, while def players have nothing on their hand to stop them.
Then the game is over, so why to prolong it?
Lich Lord pointed out something else: he meant a local situation and a problem how to defend if the enemy surprises you with a sudden investment in one area. I think you should read the past discussions here. (otherwise I would have to repeat what I said several posts earlier: the problem with too effective defenses, and the availability of the surprise attack.)
often the lack of options mean a less interesting and repetitive game
But Conquest offers a bunch of options: where to expand to, where to send scouts to, where to send landing forces, whether to go for a faster profit or a faster territory grab... (besides of the options for "how to attack")
BTW do you want to say the standard Wesnoth is less repetitive than Conquest, because of the complicated combat rules?

fortifying
you dont want to tell me that the ability to fortify units will make the tactical rules extremely complicated and/or reduce the amount of strategical deepness ?
I am sorry for my poor english, I never intended to say the ability to fortify would make rules extremely complicated. I meant it would very slightly complicate the rules, and would (very slightly) force players to concentrace more on tactics than on the strategy.
In short: the ability to fortify is questionable for me. It has some pros and some cons, it somewhat goes against the simple-combat Conquest idea. At present I guess I am 40% for it and 60% against it.
But I am strongly against the village defense bonus +15% - it will help the defense too much (especially in 2-team games).
btw, and of course you are completely wrong with "and smallest reduction for a 70% defense"
- even if dwarves cannot get higher than "extremely good defense" (which is capped at 75% for gameplay purposes), they still have the best available defense if they fortify in mountains
It looks you mix up terms "reduction of damage" and "damage".
also: just reduce the damage by 15% is pointless, since it wont allow the lieutenant to defend (while on a city) versus a knight. and so its comepletely useless.
The 15% in my post was an example. I was advocating the equal effect of fortifying, and no concrete numbers or stats.
(And I don't think a 15g Lieut in a city should have a good chances vs a 20g Knight. But this is another topic, mentioned above)
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

SlowThinker wrote:
Mabuse wrote:btw, i dont think that adding stronger units is a good thing.
because it doesnt lead to anything.
the next thing is somebody makes a 200x200 map and then we need "even stronger units"
general is and will stay the most strongest unit in the game.
there is no discussion about that
But Lich wants to add them. So now you can see your idea of 3 people responsible for the Conquest development is not very wise, as your changes may be contradictory.
any new units that lich lord wants to add needed to be looked at by me first.
so i think he posts his ideas here and i can give my opinion and we find a solution.

i gave lich lord the ability to add content to conquest since it looked people where making stuff for it. and he made some nice maps which is a great thing.
the kalifa (if they were taken over 1 to 1 from AE though arent very good for conquest.
for example id dislike that kalifas should have 50% def in desert.
doesnt make sense to me. at best they get a 40% in desert and 40% in woods also
for example. so the units will get reblanced in any case, so they make more sense are a available even for "normal maps"
atm the kalifa units are just OP imo. 50% def in desert, 60% def on hills - what comes next.

i still like conquest though and dont want to see it get ruined.
also i plan to maintain it now again for a while and since im actually able to make things right i think its best

anyway:
of course there is no problem with special recruit lists for certain maps, i even strongly encourage that.
still i think its helpful to discuss new units (among the developers, im fine with lich and vice versa). your influence on that matter is very limited

as said, i agree on the new unit called SHOCK TROOPER which get slightly altered def values (50% def on city, 40% def on flat), and wil take the role of a 20 gold def unit
if you can read shock trooper was lichs idea, to give him 50% def in city was his idea. its up to me to tweak the stats and final thingies.


about the other things:
im kinda tired to discuss with you about certain things.
just some notes:

1)
i pretty familar with the conquest gameplay.
so we dont need to discuss about basic things.
the "invention" of fortify wont make a game longer nor turn the tides.

its just helpful to be able to defend with somewhat cheaper units, against stronger units to make him pay to compensate for the loss of territory bonus somewhat.

2)
i played conquest long before you did.
so basically i heard all the stuff before.
"its against simplicity", "it will make things cmplicated" and whatnot.

the real reason behind these opinions is:
you got used to the gameplay that conquest offers atm. you did some calcs which units do good against these and that units.

now a strange, new thing like "fortify" gets added. even worse: it just doesnt give a straight bonus, no, it increases ther defensive value, and has thus different effect on different terrains
(and raise for 40 to 55 is different than a rise from 60 to 75)
and now things start to get complicated, you need to adapt again to new and strnage things, and you are not in the "save" position you are currently. and because of this you are "against" it.

but hands down: its a cool thing to have.
becasue its great if infantry can set up defenses and can form strongpoints
and maybe even defeat a higher priced unit

3)
the new stuff will get added, the only thing to worry about is balance:

right now i also think if the 15% bonus for fortify is a bit exagarated.
it would make for example pikeman too strong

basically a bonus of 10% would be also fine
(is dislike the though of giving a bonus like "12%", so its either 10% or 15%, right now it seems that it will be 10%)

in any case: when 2.8.0 is out, you can be sure that the things are balanced and ok.



i would like to discuss more with you, but atm, i dont feel it will give much, becasue you are just trying to conserve the current gameplay (which you think you are good at) and dont care too much about real development of the game. fortify will definately get added to the game.
also other abilities of other "unit classes" are welcome to get added

also sometimes you are playing with weird numbers try to form an argumentation from that
example (as you mentioned i should read the older posts):
There are several types of units - infantry (militia, infantry, elite, lieut, general), cavalry (cav, lancer, knight), village defender (pike), and there is not too much of logic in the system:
for example there are 3g, 8g, 15g infantries, and I would expect their killers (5g, 10g, 20g cavalry) would be at same fixed margin. But 5g is 166% of 3g, 10g is 125% of 8g and 20g is 133% of 15g.
for example you think that there is infantry and cavalry are their killers and that they should be in a fixed margin or something. that is of course nonsense.

one thing thing about the percentages. if we would have just 5 gold steps:
5,10,15,20
then the killer of the 5 gold unit woud be at 200% (10 is 200% of 5)
the killer of the 10 gold unit would be at 150% (15 is 150% of 10)
the killer of the 15 gold unit would be at 133% (...)

so its all different percantages, but the important thing is that we have same gold steps.
you can understand that im tired you discuss about these things, especialyl if you draw realtions between units where no where intended, come up with some strange percantages values that should be a proof that "something" is wrong with he overall balance

man, im tired with that [censored], come up with real suggestion what to do and i wil think about it, this nonsense discussin is not helpful.

as said the "main" maintainer is still me, and i think its good so.

i for myself would like to hear lich lords opinion on that matter, or better said other matters, esspecially raw ideas of what units he plan to add and stuff


EDIT:
----------

so official things i have thought about

the 15 gold and 20 gold infantry units
(lieutenants, sylphs, trolls, spiders, whatever) wil not lose movement points. so the stay at their current old values, since we lack atm a 15 gold offensive unit

the fortify ability will not be at 15%, maybe 10%

it is possible that terrain defnses for units will get changed
(kalifas definately, since i dont think that the faction is balanced in any way for conquest purposes)
i for myself see kalifas as a different human faction, so there will be just minimal differences (slightly altered terrain defs, they will have a light cav instead of an infantry (but they also get a general)
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

Mabuse, I see you ask a role of a local dictator :)
In my opinion the official maintainer is Lich Lord, unless he agrees to pass the control to you

Here are your statements from september to the present. They develop in a very interesting way:
Mabuse in [url]http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?p=458578#p458578[/url] wrote:... i hand over the *.pbl file.
i haven gotten to work on conquest yet.
so lichlord is now the official maintainer.
Mabuse in [url]http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?p=465875#p465875[/url] wrote:ok, so i also will join the ranks of conquest designers (beside lich lord)
Mabuse in [url]http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?p=466346#p466346[/url] wrote:and of course the fact that alda gave me the pbl files, doesnt disallow him to add content to conquest, and as well the fact that i gave lich lord the pbl files to add content, doesnt disallow me to add content, even if you might think so.
Mabuse wrote:any new units that lich lord wants to add needed to be looked at by me first.
so i think he posts his ideas here and i can give my opinion and we find a solution.
Mabuse wrote:as said the "main" maintainer is still me, and i think its good so.
Last edited by SlowThinker on November 25th, 2010, 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

SlowThinker wrote:Mabuse, I see you ask a role of a local dictator :)
In my opinion the official maintainer is Lich Lord, unless he agrees to pass the control to you
well im back and now stfu.

its getting boring with you.
you can always pm lich lord and you two can make a conquest clone called "the really real conquest"
of course it will be still based a lot on my work (and other people work) since everything is so laborious for you.

beside the fact that i dont see a reason for that, since i have no problems with lich lord ;)
i really like he made nice maps, and i will also add (sooner or later) also a map based on an already existing version of "mid earth" (will be renamed of course. of course it will use different recruit lists and such)

it really annoys me how that you say that i have no right anymore to maintain conquest.
may i ask what makes you think you have the right to say something like this ?
i think you overestimate yourself a bit.

you dont know what was written in the on's that lich lord and me exchanged when i gave him a COPY of my pbl file
(i didnt delete my file and it was always clear for me, if lich lord just makes a ton of crap then i just copy over his stuff and reset it. this wasnt needed of course.)

may i ask what you have done so far for conquest or may i ask to see some polished concepts how to make conquest better ?

seriously, you really annoy me. first i thought its ok, since you played a lot of 1v1 games (which i like).
but now i see you take an open hostile alignment against me, that i cannot tolerate. i really think you overestimate yourself. a lot.


for example i once maintained galactic empires for some time when bob_the_mighty declared he will leave wesnoth. well, then he came back, and it was no question for me who is the official ge maintainer. alone thinking about that is somewhat amusing.

as said, since i think i may still draw some good inspiration from your expierience as a player, if you say something about the matter or make other suggestions, i atke them into account
on other cases you simply get ignored.

since this "dont do that it makes it to complicated (for me)" is bull
and your attempt to question my right to maintain conquest is also bull

if BLUBLAZE returns he will be the unquestioned conquest maintainer.
he can redo any changes made by me, and even delete the whole conquest thing.
maybe you look for him on icq and try to convince him or win him as a friend
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

wtf_is_this
Posts: 56
Joined: March 24th, 2010, 7:01 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by wtf_is_this »

I cant realy understand why u guys are arguing:D.AS I CAN remember Mabuse said he dont has time for conquest and wants to give the Pbl file to Lich_Lord.If he wants to continue maintaining conquest i think he needa to ask Lixh,cos its very untolerant to give something and to get it back in 1-2 weeks.Also 2 maintainers arent a good idea.And about the new stronger unit/s atleast the 181 house map needs them cos not once and twice there were battles with 170 gold vs 170(Or similar) and if u make some bunch of knights the enemy is chanceless :D

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

New and official update

2.8.0 :
-------

- fixed that 900 villages thingy (by actually using the number which is set in the "game_mode XYZ" macro, which is set in each SCN file, and which should contain the number of villages on a map)

- reduced the randomizied ai units code as slowthinker suggested "(variable garrison $random)" instead of a ton of if then thingies.

- reduced amount of XP needed for a veteran rank from 16 to 12

- implemented fortify/unfortify for all infantry type units
(except worker, militia, assassin, general)
gives +15% def, cannot attack, only 2 moves per turn

- all dwarven mountain defense is set to 65%
(but fortify will fully kick in and raise dwarf mountain def to 80%)

- spider mountain defense is set to 60%
(but fortify will fully kick in and raise mountain def to 75%)


- troll city def set to 50%, flat def set to 40%

- added Iron Mauler as a 20 Gold def unit
has 50% ef on city, 40 on Flat

- a score table is shortly shown at start of each players turn
dispalys the income of players in winnning order

- drake elite inf HP raised by 10 to 160 (old 150)

- hurrican drake moves raised by 2 to 10 (old: 8)




im satisfied with the balance atm, in the high gold system the battles should be really more interesting now. fortified units are most likely able to defeat better classed units, but will fall against (likely) two of them

strongest def unit is enchantress.
just try it out. ;)

to be able to overcome them, the more defensive civs (= that dont have a gen, need to stack their 20 gold units - which should be also able to win with 2, but it may be harder though




@LICHLORD:
i dont mind if you add new units in extra recruitment menues that you specialy design for you rmap (i.e. you simply copy and existing one, rename it slightly and add the units you want ;))

i stil think its good if you exchange/share opnions with me, since i may give you some balancing ideas.

i didnt touch the kalifa (other than i added the siegetrooper for them)
i just mention that hil bonus of 60% and desert def of 50% is a bit OP
however it cannot be changed unless someone spands more time on it and renames all the macros (since if oyu leave the old ID (for the units, races, etc - then it wil cuase oos and problems with the original AE units)


if you want add things load down the most current version first.
current version is 2.8.0

Long live Conquest - now with Infantry being able to prepare defenses
and some polished up code that speeds up village sdistribution
Last edited by Mabuse on November 26th, 2010, 5:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

wtf_is_this wrote:I cant realy understand why u guys are arguing:D.AS I CAN remember Mabuse said he dont has time for conquest and wants to give the Pbl file to Lich_Lord.If he wants to continue maintaining conquest i think he needa to ask Lixh,cos its very untolerant to give something and to get it back in 1-2 weeks.Also 2 maintainers arent a good idea.And about the new stronger unit/s atleast the 181 house map needs them cos not once and twice there were battles with 170 gold vs 170(Or similar) and if u make some bunch of knights the enemy is chanceless :D
i suggest you dont talk about things which arent your matter at all.
its clear that i dont have to ask anyone to edit conquest, beside the fact that i actuall yhave some expierience with wml and can realise things.

i look forward working together with lich lord and gledwig also though, since i think these two creative guys can help to enrichen conquest with new maps and stuff.

as said, for me its not question that the content of recruitment lists that are used within a map are up to the mapmaker. so if you make a map you can frrely edit the units which can be used in that map - and simply create NEW recruitmentslists
the old ones wont get edited, since they effect also maps of other authors.

for the midlands map for example the "evil cities" may use a combination of undead and orcs for example (orcs, trolls and ghosts for example)

if lich lord thinks his very large maps needs more higher priced units, i offer my help balancing them. to make units be able to fortify you just need to give them the "fortify"-ability
everything else is managed by the system

i also plan to exchange the "boat lists" which are very laborius to edit, with an boarding ability, so you can just add the boarding ability to that unit and it will work with boats

wil be added in the next add on

until then, create stuff carefully, i offer my help to balance and give suggestions.
(and that someone is able to add stuff doesnt mean he is allowed to change other stuff.
i can only say - that adding non mainline based units (=fully custom) is a VERY bad decision unless yu really know how to add them properly -)
making conquest dependend of other add ons is not wanted.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Post Reply