You think a faction is overpowered? Come here!

[Lorbi]

you need a lot of wood on the map to make woses worth 20g
on "normal" terrain they have 20% ... that is even worse than when
you get attack with magical attacks

maybe one should decrease their hp and increase the chance of dodging

[nebula955]

it doesnt matter if they get attacked and hit 3 times by a spearman in grassland.......they hit back much harder.

[Weeksy]

you don't attack them with spears, you attack with fencers and cavalrymen. A cav can get to a wose anywhere, and deal major damage with less retaliation than most units would take.

[waldol1]

maybe one should decrease their hp and increase the chance of dodging

I don't think tree people would be very evasive, but I think it should take a bunch to take them down.

[Lacotemale]

I think that Woses should be able to hit things more often as they never seem to be able to hit anything. I used to think that Woses suck but now I think they are ok..ish.

I think more accurate attack and 10% increase with dodging would make a difference.

[Duthlet]

I think more accurate attack and 10% increase with dodging would make a difference.

Yes, it would. It would change a quite nicely balanced unit into a insanely overpowered one.
Woses are already very powerful (the level 1 unit with the highest melee base damage iirc). If you use them well (don't expose them to fire attacks, don't leave them standing alone at night, retreat them and let them regenerate, use the ambush ability, ...), they are deadly and hard to kill.
Of course your army should mainly consist of other units and I wouldn't recommend to recruit more than two of them unless you're facing undeads. But they are a nice complement to the rebel faction and can turn a battle to your favor.

[Kristjan]

You think a faction is overpowered or too weak?
Organize here some match to test your statement!

I'm not a top-player but i here if someone want to try.
Every match will be posted as replay here to examine.

My Login
Nick: Herduk
When i can login: Monday-Friday (just tell me before) around 18.30 GMT+1(Rome time), Saturday from 9.00 to 11.30 always Rome time daylight savetime.


So, when people ask for a replay, everyone can get it quickly.

wait a minute. How will you prove to John T. that Northerners do not suck against Loyalists? By giving him loyalists side and letting him play against skilled player Sean M. who unquestionably will prove us all that Northerners do not suck against loyalists?

It's far more reasonable to suggest that only way we can draw some conclusions about balanced factions is to look at the results of games where expectancy on both similarly skilled sides was purely about crushing the opponent and not proving that this or that faction is stronger.

[Velensk]

The reason this works is that in general it is unskilled players who think sides are unbalanced because they don't understand the game. All you have to do realy is prove how it can be done, because if it can be done by either side by using superior tatics to prove the match is balanced. If a skilled player thinks there is a problem and can prove it through extensive testing then things get changed.

[Kristjan]

The reason this works is that in general it is unskilled players who think sides are unbalanced because they don't understand the game. All you have to do realy is prove how it can be done, because if it can be done by either side by using superior tatics to prove the match is balanced. If a skilled player thinks there is a problem and can prove it through extensive testing then things get changed.

playing a game to prove that factions are/ are not balanced is in my opinion flawed. Logically you can only look for answers under the circumstances where opponents were playing to win.

[Velensk]

Both sides do play to win, that is the point.

If you happen to think a particular match-up is unbalanced you play a series of games against a good player.
If he can consistantly beat you as the "disadvantaged" side with average luck then obviousely you were wrong. If you are consistantly winning then there might accualy be a problem and more extensive testing will probably occur.

[Kristjan]

Both sides do play to win, that is the point.

If you happen to think a particular match-up is unbalanced you play a series of games against a good player.
If he can consistantly beat you as the "disadvantaged" side with average luck then obviousely you were wrong. If you are consistantly winning then there might accualy be a problem and more extensive testing will probably occur.

can't you see a flaw in your reasoning?

here is an analogy (I dislike analogies, but I'm not very clearminded at the moment):
let's say that I think driving Renault F1 car is disadvantage against Toyota F1 car because I say so (superstition).

Now what would you do is let me race with Renault F1 against disadvantaged (emphasize on "based on my opion and nothing else") Toyota with good racer.

What I would do instead is look at stats/results we have from the events then good racers and these exact same two cars where involved.


If I still failed to convince you that having a game to demonstrate someone being wrong is just too unreliable and too subjective, then explain me why, using logical/scientific reasoning.

[Noy]

Maybe you don't get it. Experienced players already know its balanced. This thread is not for those people. Most people who come on here and says the game isn't, aren't experienced, and can't accept that it is, so this is one way of showing them.

[Velensk]

The problem with your anolagy is that skill in wesnoth is a bunch of qualitative variables not a quantitative veriable. (I'll explain this later)

When you say a match-up is unbalanced you must say what is unbalanced about it. This will generaly fall under one of two catagories. One there is a certain stratagy, tactic, or unit combonation that one side can execute that the other side can't effectively counter. Or Two, one side is at an inherant disadvantage for some reason that is not balanced by the other sides situation.

Wesnoth has generaly ironed out the second type, if there are any problems in that they are very well hidden. For this reason the compaints we tend to get are of the first type. In order to prove that they are balanced (or in most cases that x tactic isn't rigged against them) we get a player who knows how to counter it to play them and prove it. If it can be demonstrated that whatever tactic can be effectivly counterd then that "issue" has been settled.

The second type of issue is harder to settle, and even harder to balance out because it is where all the minor advantages slowly add up to get a slight imbalance. Wesnoths top players have played each other many times the ToCs is full of such matches, and for the most part they agree that Wesnoth is fairly well balanced. However testing for this is much harder, as I said in the first paragraph you can't just grab two players measure their skill on some numerical scale and conclude that they are of even skill. This is because skill on a strageigic scale comes in a bunch of veriables here are some examples
-knows how to effectively use ZOC for screening
-knows how to adcomadate for enemy retaliatoin while makeing his moves
-what would player do in x situations (and aaaa-zzzz situations also)
and so on and so forth. There are verying lvls and options for each example but nothing that could be numericaly measured.
In a car race essentialy a good driver is one who can most efficiently use the cars speed, acceleration, turn, excetera. In wesnoth you can't pin it down so simpily. Thus we can't scientificaly test as you could do with a car. The cummunity as a whole has done incredible amounts of testing cumuativly, and although the balance is not perfect, it is fairly good and being hammerd out continualy.

I had a simular discussion with one, Shadowcry. If you look through it you may find even more on the issue.

[Lorbi]

has anyone ever made a statistic how often every faction wins / losses in all the ToC replays?

[Kristjan]

The problem with your anolagy is that skill in wesnoth is a bunch of qualitative variables not a quantitative veriable. (I'll explain this later)

When you say a match-up is unbalanced you must say what is unbalanced about it. This will generaly fall under one of two catagories. One there is a certain stratagy, tactic, or unit combonation that one side can execute that the other side can't effectively counter. Or Two, one side is at an inherant disadvantage for some reason that is not balanced by the other sides situation.

Wesnoth has generaly ironed out the second type, if there are any problems in that they are very well hidden. For this reason the compaints we tend to get are of the first type. In order to prove that they are balanced (or in most cases that x tactic isn't rigged against them) we get a player who knows how to counter it to play them and prove it. If it can be demonstrated that whatever tactic can be effectivly counterd then that "issue" has been settled.

The second type of issue is harder to settle, and even harder to balance out because it is where all the minor advantages slowly add up to get a slight imbalance. Wesnoths top players have played each other many times the ToCs is full of such matches, and for the most part they agree that Wesnoth is fairly well balanced. However testing for this is much harder, as I said in the first paragraph you can't just grab two players measure their skill on some numerical scale and conclude that they are of even skill. This is because skill on a strageigic scale comes in a bunch of veriables here are some examples
-knows how to effectively use ZOC for screening
-knows how to adcomadate for enemy retaliatoin while makeing his moves
-what would player do in x situations (and aaaa-zzzz situations also)
and so on and so forth. There are verying lvls and options for each example but nothing that could be numericaly measured.
In a car race essentialy a good driver is one who can most efficiently use the cars speed, acceleration, turn, excetera. In wesnoth you can't pin it down so simpily. Thus we can't scientificaly test as you could do with a car. The cummunity as a whole has done incredible amounts of testing cumuativly, and although the balance is not perfect, it is fairly good and being hammerd out continualy.

I had a simular discussion with one, Shadowcry. If you look through it you may find even more on the issue.

- getting the loss against acclaimed underpowered faction won't prove that the faction is not underpowered. The outcome of showmatches can be interpreted in many ways

- sure you can demonstrate tactics under such circumstances

- well, yes you are right that competition level does not equal "same skill level"

- I stand by my claim that observing the competitive level gameplay is the only reasonable way to get the idea how underpowered the faction that somebody complaining about is.

- what makes you think that wesnoth is scientifically more complex to analyze than F1 competition? (the lack of scientists willing to do this task could be one reason, but c'mon)