Please post any comments or feedback that you have!
EDIT: it has been uploaded now
@vyncyn - i have made the change you suggest with the dragoon, and i agree about leaders
The_Gnat wrote:the goal of this project was to attempt to create a balanced era (with level 2 units) that in balanced maps and two teams would have a fair battle.
Bitron wrote:I serioulsy thing it would be best to cut all the lvl 1 units out. I think the Age of Heroes is not about having access to lvl 2 units, but to play with them. Someone noticed, that it would be good to have some lvl 1 units für village grabbing. Well, when no faction has those lvl 1 units, it is fair again, right?
Also I dont think that any lvl 2 unit should be missing.
Birtron wrote:Im not sure if anyone else already said it but even if you change just the cost of the lvl 2 units, every campaign involving lvl2 recruitement will be affected.
Duthlet wrote:Some random thoughts about the era:
To decide on the final recruit lists you should imho first define the purpose of the era. Why should people play this era rather than default era? People wrote in this thread, they like to have direct access to the awesome lvl2 units. This indicates they wish to be able to recruit all lvl2 units. To me personally it would seem weird if there was a lvl2 (from the default era unit tree) completely unavailabele in this era, i.e. neither the lvl2 unit nor the lvl1 unit it levels from were recruitable. Additionally, I'd need to face some lvl1 units to perceive the lvl2 units as awesome. To me lvl2 units fighting lvl2 units is hardly different from lvl1 units fighting lvl1 units. All numbers in the unit stats are bigger making healing from villages and poison less important, but that's about it. (If you don't change the gold settings you also have considerably less units on the field but, you should probably adjust the gold settings for balancing anyway.)
Duthlet wrote:- Do you mean two teams here (1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3 etc.) or two sides (only 1vs1)? Note that each setting has its own issues that need to be balanced; balancing for several of them gets increasingly difficult.
- There are no "balanced maps". Only the combination of era, map and map settings can be balanced.
- For a fair battle you also need players of similar "playing strength" (can you say it like that in english?). You might have a faction, that in order to be as strong as it can be requires difficult to learn strategies, and another faction , that can be played optimally with a straightforward approach. In that case you have to decide if you want to balance for beginners or for experts (or exactly for which skill level in between).
Duthlet wrote:The only way to achieve this, is to have the best players play with each other over and over again. So I think if this era should be balanced for a certain group of people it is mandatory that these people play a lot of games of this era with each other.
Duthlet wrote:I assume if this era is to be included in mainline it will use the same units as the default era and the campains. Therefore, I think the only thing that can reasonably be changed is the cost of lvl2 units, but imho even this should be done as little as possible.
Duthlet wrote:(I don't know a lot about balancing campaings and guess most unit cost changes can be corrected there quite easily by changing the gold of AI sides. Maybe someone who knows more about that can tell how big the changes can be there). I think the best way to balance lvl1 units vs lvl2 units are the gold settings. (Thinking of this it might be nice, but probably not easy to implement, to have different map settings for different eras. The map settings only try to balance the map for one expected era anyway.) I recommend to change the upkeep to 2 per village and increase the starting gold considerably (otherwise lvl1s might be too strong).
Gold per village can ofc also be increased, maybe to 3, but I'm not sure how important that is.
Duthlet wrote:PS: My opinion on the design of the era is neglectable, as I don't consider myself to be part of the target group for this era. My opinion on balancing should be taken with a grain of salt, as I never actively balanced an era myself.
zookeeper wrote:Whether changes to lvl2 are a concern for mainline campaigns depends on how big those changes are. If an enemy leader has 300 gold with which to recruit units, and one of their recruits now costs 28 instead of 32 gold then that's very unlikely to make a meaningful difference anywhere. Same if some attack does 1 point more or less damage, or hitpoints change by +-5%.
Keeping a separate list of all stats changes would be good, and when doing that please include the original value too, so one can actually tell how big the change is.
Bitron wrote:Someone noticed, that it would be good to have some lvl 1 units für village grabbing. Well, when no faction has those lvl 1 units, it is fair again, right?
Vyncyn wrote:I only recruited Marksmen and Sorceresses and easily won. Then I playes Rebels vs Drakes pvp, recruited Marksmen and Sorceresses and again easily won. Though this propably needs more testing, I think Rebels are generally too strong against Drakes. Even the Arbiter/Trasher fall too quickly against them.
Vyncyn wrote:Loyalist seem relatively balanced, but I still wish they had either pikeman or javelineer.
Vyncyn wrote:Khalifate should have elder falcon instead of their current lvl1 scout.
Problem is with undeads: When they do not have bats they are missing a lot of their scouting ability; When they do have bats, but every other faction has only lvl2 scouts the undeads will have a huge advantage at village grabbing.
Similar problem with soulless and goblin impaler, as I think they are important to undead/northerners, but give them an unfair advantage when the other factions do not have access to some cheaper units.
Samonella wrote:Basically, you're making whole new factions from scratch. I'm not saying it's impossible to do so and make it balanced, but I think it will be very hard. And it will be even harder to get enough play-testing for this project to get legitimatized. Making a purely level-2 version of the default era would be a much more realistic goal, or at least a more realistic first step.
Samonella wrote:Anyway, good luck, whatever you decide to do. Oh, and btw the add-on description says "two" where I think you meant "too."
The_Gnat wrote:@everybody: Samonella has a good point though perhaps (not ideal but an alternative idea). Another idea for balancing Drakes vs. Elves: instead of having the sorceress on the elvish recruit list we add the red mage instead. The default era has the mage which deals fire damage, this would still fulfill the role of 'powerful ranged unit with mage ability' but it would not be so effective against the drakes. What are your thoughts?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests