Leadership is overpowered!

Discussion among members of the development team.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Yogibear
Retired Developer
Posts: 1086
Joined: September 16th, 2005, 5:44 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by Yogibear »

Elvish Pillager wrote:Besides the impracticalities, what do you all think of Leadership allowing only 1 unit to be led per turn?
I would not move my leader to the front, just to lead one unit unless:

- The front is nearby and i can return quickly (1 turn) to the keep.
- I move my leader to the front to go fighting and take this as a neat side effect.
- I move my leader with my units anyway (like for example often done in campaigns).

Otherwise, IMO the drawbacks outweigh the advantage.
Smart persons learn out of their mistakes, wise persons learn out of others mistakes!
Beleth
Posts: 240
Joined: October 11th, 2005, 6:22 am

Post by Beleth »

Yogi Bear wrote:I would not move my leader to the front, just to lead one unit unless...
I tend to agree.
User avatar
Cuyo Quiz
Posts: 1777
Joined: May 21st, 2005, 12:02 am
Location: South America

Post by Cuyo Quiz »

I side with Jetryl. As long as that requisite is met, i think all the other derivative costs of giving leadership to a unit balances it out.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me :D
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
dtw
Posts: 478
Joined: September 27th, 2004, 1:32 pm

Post by dtw »

Beleth wrote:Perhaps leadership could provide +25% damage to units of a lower level no matter how much lower they are? A level 3 General would give +25% to a level 2 Pikeman and a level 0 Peasant just the same.

This wouldn't completely change leadership, would simplify its usage, and would cover the +50% or more abuses. And it's KISS compliant.
I think this is the most obvious route to take - a 5% reduction would also be a safe start - that means a Lv3 leading and Lv0 gives 80% (daft but there we go) and the more common Lv2 Lv1 would just be 20%.

Of course the rounding of such a bonus is a big factor. Make the bonus too small and rounding down will just remove it :)
Besides the impracticalities, what do you all think of Leadership allowing only 1 unit to be led per turn?
It's daft - why would you do something that radical when the suggestion above is available?

At best, when holding a line, I think it is realistically possible to lead about six units a turn. Basing it on how many you can lead in theory is just ridculous. That type of thinking cannot completely account for all the other variables. Another important factor is after all the moving where your general ends up - but we're not just talking about generals are we? Although generals often have leadership not all leadership units are generals...you can't take in all the possibilities.

Your move ending once you lead a unit is possible but could be annoying (if you cause a lead accidently (but no more annoying than moving into a ZoC when shroud is on and you can't undo). Only leading say 6 units per turn is also fairer but then how do you choose if you want to lead those units? It'd be too easy to attack with your leader adjacent and lose on. Then we'd need a way of counting how many leads...

Or! Why not dispense with a percentage altogether! Why not just call it +1 per difference in level? With a Lv2 and Lv1 the bonus is about 1 anyway and rarely more than 3 with a Lv3 and Lv1 (that's a guestimate) but when you get up to lv4 leading a lv3 25% of 12 is a massive bonus!

Aside from that a percentage makes "strong" units stronger, which seems unfair to me it should a be a flat bonus to all troops not favour the strongest.

BTW: when EP said a general can lead your whole army 0 isn;t that the point of a greta general? The fact the general CAN move around and inspire many units is great but not all people capitalize on that and lead from the back. The current system favours good leadership skills :)
Signature dropped due to use of img tag
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Using up all your moves when leading is a neat, if slightly annoying, solution. I like it better than any other suggestion so far.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
blackjack
Posts: 177
Joined: February 11th, 2004, 11:12 am

Post by blackjack »

I do not think that Leadership is overpowered. As it stands, there is an innate penalty for units with leadership (Elvish Champ vs Marshal stats, eg). I would favour toning down units with leadership.

As for making units 50% more powerful... well, lvl 3 leaders are not that common in multiplayer, and for campaigns, I don't think they are unbalanced. It's just another element of gameplay.

The test of whether an ability is "overpowered" is really whether it is unbalanced, ie game-breaking. Not a huge multiplayer enthusiast, but I don't see how leadership is gamebreaking. It doesn't lead to any "invincible" strategies, but only gives you an edge which is not dissimilar to the edge one gets from regenerating units, or healing, or poison...
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

blackjack wrote:[leadership] only gives you an edge which is not dissimilar to the edge one gets from regenerating units, or healing, or poison...
It's dissimilar because it's bigger. L3 Leadership is commonly a 40 damage per turn difference, whereas regenerates, cures, and poison combined add up to only 34.

It is also potentially game-breaking in Age of Heroes and similar eras.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
Beleth
Posts: 240
Joined: October 11th, 2005, 6:22 am

Post by Beleth »

Elvish Pillager wrote:It's dissimilar because it's bigger. L3 Leadership is commonly a 40 damage per turn difference, whereas regenerates, cures, and poison combined add up to only 34.
I think it's a bit hard to make such calculations because there are a lot of background information being glossed over. Are we talking about campaign or MP, for example? The reason this would matter is that often in Campaigns you have multiple leadership units on the front vs. MP when you often don't. And what if regen makes your unit just healthy enough that your opponent decides not to attack it - wouldn't you need to count the EV of the damage you'd take and dish out as part of the damage difference because it would have occurred if not for regen?
Beleth
Posts: 240
Joined: October 11th, 2005, 6:22 am

Post by Beleth »

Here's a question which may (or may not) help the discussion:

If leadership is overpowered to the point of game breaking, then how come Undead, Northerners, and Knalgan (factions without leadership) can beat Loyalists, Drakes, and Rebels (factions with leadership) in multiplayer? I'd think that we'd see a heavy bias towards the leadership factions.*

I readily agree that the skill of the player matters greatly in MP, though something that's game breaking should have mediocre players beating highly competent players.

(*Maybe you do see that bias; I don't in the games I play.)
anatelos
Posts: 37
Joined: November 4th, 2005, 2:17 pm

Post by anatelos »

Dragonking wrote:I don't think it is overpowered.
To use it, you often have to risk your leader.
You're close to the front when you can use leadership.
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Beleth wrote:If leadership is overpowered to the point of game breaking, then how come Undead, Northerners, and Knalgan (factions without leadership) can beat Loyalists, Drakes, and Rebels (factions with leadership) in multiplayer?
That's because Leadership is rarely used in MP, and when it is, it is almost always by a side leader who takes balancing disadvantage from being away from the keep.

However, when a unit with leadership advances or is recruited, the tide of battle will usually swing towards the player with the leadership.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
Pentalis
Posts: 10
Joined: June 24th, 2005, 4:10 am
Location: Chile
Contact:

¿Teleport not turning the tide of a battle?

Post by Pentalis »

The only other ability that has such an unprecedent effect - Teleport - can't turn the tide of a battle, and has many restrictions.
I put that in doubt.
There was an MP game I was playing in which I was about to die, and my leader leveled up, becoming a Silver Mage, from that moment and on I started to win the game that was already technically lost; we didn't finish that game, but I'm sure I would have won.
Not only in that moment did teleport affect the game results so surprisingly, in at least 2 other ocassions it has made me win the game when nobody expected it (either doing the key movement in the middle of the game, or in the end of it... or by annoying people repeteadly along 1 game).

Teleport can truly turn the tide of a battle, despite its restrictions.
Beleth
Posts: 240
Joined: October 11th, 2005, 6:22 am

Post by Beleth »

Elvish Pillager wrote:That's because Leadership is rarely used in MP, and when it is, it is almost always by a side leader who takes balancing disadvantage from being away from the keep.

However, when a unit with leadership advances or is recruited, the tide of battle will usually swing towards the player with the leadership.
1) Your first point is a fair one, definitely.

2) My experiences don't support your second point. (Not saying that you're wrong; just saying that our data sets disagree.)
guest
Posts: 109
Joined: April 16th, 2005, 3:15 am

Post by guest »

Hello.

I am glad that Jetryl is defending the current leadership. It is good, easy to understand, simple, and very KISS. The ability leadership is not, in itself, overpowered, even if you can realistically lead a few units per turn in a skirmish. (E.g. with a Drake Flare).

Here's the deal as I see it:
- The MP problems that EP has raised do not seem to me to be problems with the ability leadership, but the amount of units with leadership that a player can have in a game with plenty of gold.
- If this is the case, this is a problem of factional balance, not a problem with the ability leadership. Thus, if leadership is overly powerful in Age of Heroes or custom era (with lvl2/3 units recruitable) games, the solution is not to change the ability, but to increase the cost of leadership units significantly.
Elvish Pillager wrote:Jetryl makes a good case for keeping Leadership, which isn't what I was against. It's just that the current way it works is so different from all other Wesnoth abilities.

--

On the other hand,
  • The only other ability that can effect that many units - Cures - can heal six units for three damage each.
  • The only other ability that has such an unprecedent effect - Teleport - can't turn the tide of a battle, and has many restrictions.
  • The only other ability that can cause that much extra damage - Berserk - looks like it won't have that effect much longer.
<provocation mode>
It seems to me that EP is on a quest towards "one faction, one unit" -style Wesnoth, with all the differences and "diverging" abilities pruned to the point of being virtually useless, thus taking away from Wesnoth its most appealing feature, the diverse and imaginative gameplay.
</provocation mode>

Yours humbly,

just me.

P.S. How did the developers' forum turn to a jumble of offtopic threads that should be in ideas, over just one weekend? It's a shame.
User avatar
Cuyo Quiz
Posts: 1777
Joined: May 21st, 2005, 12:02 am
Location: South America

Post by Cuyo Quiz »

The Developers Forum is just the Ideas Forum of those who have custom titles, my friend.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me :D
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
Post Reply