Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

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

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
ghype
Posts: 1069
Joined: December 13th, 2016, 4:43 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by ghype »

@Xalzar: i am not sure what else to comment on that other than that the soldier line actually no longer reaches lv4. giving this line leadership only because it reaches lv4 does not qualify (i guess). same might be applied in real life history. Some became "sultans" because there were good fighters or simply powerful enough (because of he is rich). That doesn't mean his strategical skills or over the top (where i don't want to say there were no sultans good at tactics).

But if I was a sultan and i knew i wasn't as skilled at planning out strategic battles, i would let the one do it who is actually good at it.
User avatar
nemaara
Developer
Posts: 333
Joined: May 31st, 2015, 2:13 am

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by nemaara »

So maybe unlike some of the others who have commented on your threads, I'm looking at your reworked Dunefolk in a vacuum (as in not comparing it to the original at all, since I really didn't look at it that much). For the most part, it looks fairly balanced to me, minus some very small changes (e.g. +-1 gold or damage to certain units) that I would like to have (but haven't completely thought out whether it's necessary or not, I'd need to play the faction a bit more first).

The only thing that I felt was a relatively large issue was in the Rider advancement lines. While there are supposed to be three advancement lines for ranged, melee, and hybrid, I feel that the melee and hybrid functionally don't seem that differentiated to me (minus their alignment). I think you could either reduce the Sunderer's movement by 1 (to 6), or increase the Cataphract's movement by 1 (to 7), since it felt pretty bad to me to lose 1 movement on level up without any choice (in humans, you get a choice to get a pally or a grand knight if you don't want to lose that movement). I'd also like to see the Cataphract get possibly even more of a focus on melee, maybe +1 melee damage and -1 ranged damage from what it is now. For the Raider line, I'd personally like to see something a bit more interesting than merely a hybrid version of the other two advancement lines. You could try adding a fire attack, or giving them some special/ability to allow for some gameplay variety (something that comes to mind is hit and run?), or some combination thereof. As they are now, I also think 9 movement feels like a bit much, but that can change depending on if you want to change the line. :hmm:

More minor thing, the level 1 Shieldbreaker doesn't have slow on its ranged attack, but it looks like it should?
User avatar
Celtic_Minstrel
Developer
Posts: 2166
Joined: August 3rd, 2012, 11:26 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by Celtic_Minstrel »

Xalzar wrote: March 27th, 2019, 1:13 pm
Celtic_Minstrel wrote: March 27th, 2019, 1:04 amI really don't mind this oddity. Not every unit intended to function as a leader in lore needs to have the leadership ability - the Elvish Lord doesn't have leadership, for example.
You're right. But the right examples are not the Elvish Lord/High Lord and the Elvish Captain/Marshal, since they both stop at level 3. Better examples are the Elvish Captain/Marshal and the Elvish Sorceress/Enchantress/Sylph: the latter goes up to level 4 but has no Leadership. Granted, they are two different lines instead of advancement brancesh like in the Dunefolk faction, but there's a precedent nonetheless.
So I retract my observation about the Leadership.
I think we're trying to prove different things about the situation with our examples – my point was that there was precedent for a unit with leadership lore not having the leadership ability.
ghype wrote: March 27th, 2019, 1:27 pm
Celtic_Minstrel wrote: March 26th, 2019, 1:00 am
  • The removal of melee marksman is kinda disappointing. I understand your reasoning for removing it on the L1 unit, but couldn't it be added on L2 or L3? Doesn't necessarily need to be on the Soldier line, though in my opinion it would fit the Bladesmaster quite well thematically.
  • I wish you'd explained better what the "shock" special does actually does (yeah, I know I can look it up in UtBS); also, the name doesn't feel like it fits for a shield bash effect.
We actually planned to introduce a new unit line (only available as leader) which was doing exactly that. melee marksman from lv+2. Don't know why haven't thought about removing it only for the lv1. If we introduce marksman back on lv2 and lv3 (probabyl only lv3 thought), we could consider to drop the new "shock" special as well as I't wouldn't feel necessary at that point. The old slow and the suggested "shock" were just specials to expand on soldiers tanking functions. So instead of those we could boost armour slightly and thats it.
I'm not sure if having a leader-only melee marksman would satisfy me... I think I'd probably prefer the normal recruitable line gains the ability at L3.

As a side note, if you did end up deciding to create a leader-only line starting at L2, I'd recommend still including a non-recruitable L1 version of it as an auxiliary unit, much like loyalists have the Sergeant.
ghype wrote: March 27th, 2019, 1:27 pm
Celtic_Minstrel wrote: March 26th, 2019, 1:00 am
  • Skirmisher new name should probably be something indicative of a higher rank, such as Marshal, General, even Sergeant or the like; but ideally picking something with a Middle-Eastern theme. The level-up would of course follow the same theme.
  • Removal of Harrier is a bit disappointing for some reason.
  • You never mentioned what advancement was removed from the Rover line in the details area. Yeah, I can just look it up, but...
Well the skirmisher is no longer skirmishing as the it was too strong with such resistance. If you wanted a skirmishing unit it would have to be at least 0 physical or semi-elusive. But such a unit wouldn't make sense to lv up from a tank with has 20% blade/pierce. This talking from the perspective from skrimisher now coming from the soldier and not rover.
I don't really understand how this is a response to my comment, as I was merely suggesting new possible names for the line that used to have the skirmisher ability but now has the leadership ability.


Also, by the way – was all of this checked over for RIPLIB violations? In particular, one of nemaara's comments makes me wonder...
Author of The Black Cross of Aleron campaign and Default++ era.
Former maintainer of Steelhive.
User avatar
The_Gnat
Posts: 2215
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by The_Gnat »

nemaara wrote: March 27th, 2019, 11:48 pm So maybe unlike some of the others who have commented on your threads, I'm looking at your reworked Dunefolk in a vacuum (as in not comparing it to the original at all, since I really didn't look at it that much). For the most part, it looks fairly balanced to me, minus some very small changes (e.g. +-1 gold or damage to certain units) that I would like to have (but haven't completely thought out whether it's necessary or not, I'd need to play the faction a bit more first).

More minor thing, the level 1 Shieldbreaker doesn't have slow on its ranged attack, but it looks like it should?
Hello nemaara, Thank you for your comments we appreciate any and every perspective about the DF!

That said I do hope after all the testing we have done there are no instantly apparent stat issues (hp., damag, gold) :mrgreen:
The only thing that I felt was a relatively large issue was in the Rider advancement lines. ... I feel that the melee and hybrid functionally don't seem that differentiated to me (minus their alignment). I'd also like to see the Cataphract get possibly even more of a focus on melee, maybe +1 melee damage and -1 ranged damage from what it is now.
That is quite interesting. I agree there is certainly still room for improvement in the lines. However, I do think that the sword which the Sunderer carries along with alignment and slower MP make it different enough to give it value. Some people were in support of giving it back a lance as well which would add more differentiation between the lines. Also we were considering buffing the Cataphract's melee and reducing its ranged attack but we wanted to keep the common theme of the Rider line which is characterized by the bow it carries.

In regards to the marauder I would love to see a flaming bow but that might be too far out there ^_^ , what are other peoples thoughts on this?
I think you could either reduce the Sunderer's movement by 1 (to 6), or increase the Cataphract's movement by 1 (to 7),
Thank you for noticing that. That is clearly a typo, in no universe do we think RIPLIB is good. Also from the very long rant about the Piercer (in the REMOVED UNIT thread) you will see that we are strongly against a 6mp horse rider ;)

I will talk with the team and get back to you about the MP of the lvl 3 rider advancements and what they were supposed to be. :)

Celtic_Minstrel wrote: March 28th, 2019, 12:35 am I'm not sure if having a leader-only melee marksman would satisfy me... I think I'd probably prefer the normal recruitable line gains the ability at L3.

As a side note, if you did end up deciding to create a leader-only line starting at L2, I'd recommend still including a non-recruitable L1 version of it as an auxiliary unit, much like loyalists have the Sergeant.
I agree that would be a fun addition and add to the possibility of a DF campaign. :D
Celtic_Minstrel wrote: March 28th, 2019, 12:35 am I think we're trying to prove different things about the situation with our examples – my point was that there was precedent for a unit with leadership lore not having the leadership ability.
:lol: :lol: Either way, we all agree that the way the Soldier advances to leader and swordsman is fine. ^_^
User avatar
Celtic_Minstrel
Developer
Posts: 2166
Joined: August 3rd, 2012, 11:26 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by Celtic_Minstrel »

A flaming bow could indeed fit the Dunefolk theme; perhaps they would soak a rag in petroleum and tie it to the arrow, then light and fire. It does make fire less exclusive to the burner line, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it's only on a L3 unit. Would it replace the unlit bow or (as with orcish archers) complement it?
Author of The Black Cross of Aleron campaign and Default++ era.
Former maintainer of Steelhive.
User avatar
sergey
Posts: 475
Joined: January 9th, 2015, 9:25 pm

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by sergey »

I like Soldier, Rover and Burner changes. Leadership advancement looks promising. Burner as a cold tank may be used against Saurian Augur. I like the shock instead of slow for the Soldier advancement.

I think it would be nice to have melee marksman for Soldier advancement.

Soldier has high damage and 2 strikes, but its advancement with leadership has 4 strikes and low damage. That looks inconsistent. I would change 7-4 to 10-3 for lvl 2 and 7-5 to 9-4 for lvl 3.

I have no access to the game now and can't check. Herbalist lvl 1 heals+4 and self-heal+4, Apothecary lvl 2 heals+4 and can't self-heal, correct? Which means the lvl 1 is better healer than the lvl 2.

Regarding the mounted units. Having only one chaotic unit is really controversial. But since it is mixed non-specialized unit, I think we can give it a try. The other rider advancements have the same alignment?
Author of SP scenario Dragon Fight and SP campaign Captured by a Nightmare.
Created The Rise of Wesnoth (alternative mechanics) version of the mainline campaign.
User avatar
ghype
Posts: 1069
Joined: December 13th, 2016, 4:43 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by ghype »


nemaara wrote: March 27th, 2019, 11:48 pm I feel that the melee and hybrid functionally don't seem that differentiated to me (minus their alignment).
sergey wrote: March 28th, 2019, 9:11 am The other rider advancements have the same alignment?
Actually, we are introducing the an Sunderer/CTP which is closer to the old one then to this one. This will make be differentiated enough from that moment on.
All Rider advancements have different alignments. Sunderer lawful, Raider chaotic, Swiftrider liminal.

nemaara wrote: March 27th, 2019, 11:48 pm I think you could either reduce the Sunderer's movement by 1 (to 6), or increase the Cataphract's movement by 1 (to 7), since it felt pretty bad to me to lose 1 movement on level up without any choice (in humans, you get a choice to get a pally or a grand knight if you don't want to lose that movement).
Celtic_Minstrel wrote: March 28th, 2019, 12:35 am Also, by the way – was all of this checked over for RIPLIB violations? In particular, one of nemaara's comments makes me wonder...
That is a mistake done by me. It is the only unit that had such a nerf upon lv up and it will be fixed.

nemaara wrote: March 27th, 2019, 11:48 pm More minor thing, the level 1 Shieldbreaker doesn't have slow on its ranged attack, but it looks like it should?
SB's ranged will be changed into a sling which doesn't require a slow special. But it's lv up will have slow using bolas.
Celtic_Minstrel wrote: March 28th, 2019, 12:35 am I don't really understand how this is a response to my comment, as I was merely suggesting new possible names for the line that used to have the skirmisher ability but now has the leadership ability.
Then I was misunderstanding, sorry for that.
Celtic_Minstrel wrote: March 28th, 2019, 12:35 am I'm not sure if having a leader-only melee marksman would satisfy me... I think I'd probably prefer the normal recruitable line gains the ability at L3.
sergey wrote: March 28th, 2019, 9:11 am I think it would be nice to have melee marksman for Soldier advancement.
When i said "we planned to introduce such a unit" I forgot to add at the end that we decided against it after all. It was supposed to be a sultan unit resembling the old swordsman sprite as the current one.
Because there will be no more such sultan unit with marksman and there were many requests to get the soldier's marksman back.

Celtic_Minstrel wrote: March 28th, 2019, 3:44 am A flaming bow could indeed fit the Dunefolk theme
The_Gnat wrote: March 28th, 2019, 1:58 am In regards to the marauder I would love to see a flaming bow but that might be too far out there
I was actually considering this already a long time ago. But i was imagining more like a melee torch or a mace pinched into naphta instead of flaming arrows. I imagine how Raiders raid enemy camps at night and set tents and camp on fire using they mace/torch. This way we would make up also for burners lost in melee fire.

sergey wrote: March 28th, 2019, 9:11 am Herbalist lvl 1 heals+4 and self-heal+4, Apothecary lvl 2 heals+4 and can't self-heal, correct? Which means the lvl 1 is better healer than the lvl 2.
No. lv1 is heals+4 and regen +4 , lv2 healer is heals +8,cures and the alchemist is only regen +4 but instead of curing it poisons

sergey wrote: March 28th, 2019, 9:11 am Soldier has high damage and 2 strikes, but its advancement with leadership has 4 strikes and low damage. That looks inconsistent. I would change 7-4 to 10-3 for lvl 2 and 7-5 to 9-4 for lvl 3.
I guess that should be possible only that from 10-3 to 9-4 is odd. if anything then it would be 10-4

User avatar
Celtic_Minstrel
Developer
Posts: 2166
Joined: August 3rd, 2012, 11:26 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by Celtic_Minstrel »

ghype wrote: March 28th, 2019, 9:36 am No. lv1 is heals+4 and regen +4 , lv2 healer is heals +8,cures and the alchemist is only regen +4 but instead of curing it poisons
Isn't this a RIPLIB violation? Both advancements lose something. Maybe the healer should retain the regen +4.
Author of The Black Cross of Aleron campaign and Default++ era.
Former maintainer of Steelhive.
User avatar
ghype
Posts: 1069
Joined: December 13th, 2016, 4:43 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by ghype »

Celtic_Minstrel wrote: March 28th, 2019, 12:33 pm
ghype wrote: March 28th, 2019, 9:36 am No. lv1 is heals+4 and regen +4 , lv2 healer is heals +8,cures and the alchemist is only regen +4 but instead of curing it poisons
Isn't this a RIPLIB violation? Both advancements lose something. Maybe the healer should retain the regen +4.
Both loosing something but gain something. It would be considered RIPLIB violation if you guys have system to weight the effective value of an ability which results in heals +8 ,cures and regen +4, poison being worse then heals+4 and regen +4
User avatar
Krogen
Posts: 310
Joined: January 1st, 2013, 3:43 pm

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by Krogen »

Caladbolg wrote: March 26th, 2019, 7:39 pm NB, I support removing the marksman special, but along with other changes to the unit, it changes the whole impression in a way I'm personally not a huge fan of. I do like the shock special instead of slow for the shield attack though.
Removal of marksman or a complete change of DF faction was necessary, it would be literally like creating a new faction from the scratch. I do not think it changes the impression of soldier too much.
"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of the sheep." - Tywin Lannister
User avatar
holius
Posts: 27
Joined: May 17th, 2017, 8:49 am
Location: France

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by holius »

Losing regen +4 is RIPL, a Reduction In Power on Leveling. And RIPL Is Bad. Default era contains very few very small RIPL, that are considered as manageable for the player.

[heals +4, regen +4] -> [heals +8, cures] or [regen +4, poison] is bad. There is no choice that keeps heals AND regen.
[heals +4, regen +4] -> [heals +8, regen +4] Health Master or [poison, cures] Poison Master avoids RIPL.
User avatar
ghype
Posts: 1069
Joined: December 13th, 2016, 4:43 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by ghype »

holius wrote: March 28th, 2019, 1:29 pm Losing regen +4 is RIPL, a Reduction In Power on Leveling. And RIPL Is Bad. Default era contains very few very small RIPL, that are considered as manageable for the player.
considering the current design of the herbalist has the best balance from all the ones we tested, the only solution I see for the advancements without violating RIPL is to give Aptothecary and lv3 Healer regen+4 and the poisoner gets regen+8. but that would implicate some re-balancing ofc.
User avatar
holius
Posts: 27
Joined: May 17th, 2017, 8:49 am
Location: France

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by holius »

Rover To Skirmisher Makes No Sense
I understand the graphical and weapon problems, but the most mobile infantry gaining Skimishing special ability makes sense to me. The RIPL problem of Rover -> Skirmisher losing ranged attack could have been handled easily (with a weak ranged capability).

The Rover has lost the advance choice and a movement point, and its cost is reduced. I need to test it to be sure I still like this unit.

The Soldier losing Marksman, I understand the reasons, but I wonder how the faction as a whole handles elusives (Hodor rush ?). Maybe it could get it back on an advancement line ?

For the Herbalist line, there are several solutions to make sure there is no RIPL. Less health (39 -> 36) for Apothecary, keep regen +4 (Apothecary and lv3 Healer) may be the minimal change from the current proposal. Maybe even increase XP of Herbalist to level up, if the advances are viewed as very strong. The Poisoner does not need to keep regen, if the other advancement choice loses nothing.
User avatar
ghype
Posts: 1069
Joined: December 13th, 2016, 4:43 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by ghype »

holius wrote: March 28th, 2019, 2:26 pm For the Herbalist line, there are several solutions to make sure there is no RIPL. Less health (39 -> 36) for Apothecary, keep regen +4 (Apothecary and lv3 Healer) may be the minimal change from the current proposal. Maybe even increase XP of Herbalist to level up, if the advances are viewed as very strong. The Poisoner does not need to keep regen, if the other advancement choice loses nothing.
Ok so I suppose the regen+8 is not necesair. but that would break the concept of that unit - spreading the abilities upon multiple lv ups, which was the biggest problem of the apothecary (that it had so many). I would come up with something else:

- Herbalist heals+4, regen+4
- Apothecary heals+8,regen+4
- Alchemsit cure, poison

would that be appealing?
User avatar
holius
Posts: 27
Joined: May 17th, 2017, 8:49 am
Location: France

Re: Dunefolk Rework - Changes In Unit Lines & Base Units

Post by holius »

ghype wrote: March 28th, 2019, 2:45 pm
holius wrote: March 28th, 2019, 2:26 pm For the Herbalist line, there are several solutions to make sure there is no RIPL. Less health (39 -> 36) for Apothecary, keep regen +4 (Apothecary and lv3 Healer) may be the minimal change from the current proposal. Maybe even increase XP of Herbalist to level up, if the advances are viewed as very strong. The Poisoner does not need to keep regen, if the other advancement choice loses nothing.
Ok so I suppose the regen+8 is not necesair. but that would break the concept of that unit - spreading the abilities upon multiple lv ups, which was the biggest problem of the apothecary (that it had so many). I would come up with something else:

- Herbalist heals+4, regen+4
- Apothecary heals+8,regen+4
- Alchemsit cure, poison

would that be appealing?
Yes, it 's exactly what I meant in a previous post, to make sure there is no RIPL with the least ability gains: "[heals +4, regen +4] -> [heals +8, regen +4] Health Master or [poison, cures] Poison Master avoids RIPL."
Post Reply