[Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
[Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
Summary of Proposal
Problems with Old Marksman
Gameplay Implications
Possible Objections
What now?
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
I actually kind of like this idea, though I do think marksman as it was before was a fine ability, I just think that this would be more generically useful. Marksman as it was used before only gave you any sort of advantage if your enemy was in cover or good at dodging.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
I like the idea.
This will make the Marksman trait even more different from Magical.
This will make the Marksman trait even more different from Magical.
ride on shooting star
- Maiklas3000
- Posts: 532
- Joined: June 23rd, 2010, 10:43 am
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
I like the idea, on the basis of being easier to understand, more realistic, and tactically-enriching. I do have one concern. Marksmen are used most often against 60% defense, IMHO, such as most units on fortress or mountain hexes as well as most flying units. And, as you pointed out, the proposed change would make Marksmen less effective against 60% defense. The way you did your calculation, you would say the proposed Marksman would be 16.666% less effective on 60% defense, but a better way to say is that you lose 50% of the Marksman bonus in that case, so that's really a big nerfing.
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
As Maiklas pointed out, this would be a considerable role change to the marksman weapon special. It would make Marksman somewhat more effective against units with low defense, and considerably less effective against units with high defense. Elvish marksmen would become more effective against cavalry and drakes (80% chance to hit drakes in the open?), and considerably less effective against units with high defense. Although elusivefoot got mentioned, this would also reduce the effectiveness of the assassin against dwarves in hills and mountains, and assassins are very important in that matchup.
I can only address multiplayer balance, but I think, given the current balance, that some effort would need to be made to adjust if this change were implemented. Assassins are very important for finishing elusivefoot units, and high defense units in general, because of the tendency of the Northerners to be limited to two strikes. Similarly, the ability of gliders to reliably finish off low-health units is important to the Drakes under certain circumstances, when not wasting damage is more important than giving experience to another unit.
Just some things to consider.
I can only address multiplayer balance, but I think, given the current balance, that some effort would need to be made to adjust if this change were implemented. Assassins are very important for finishing elusivefoot units, and high defense units in general, because of the tendency of the Northerners to be limited to two strikes. Similarly, the ability of gliders to reliably finish off low-health units is important to the Drakes under certain circumstances, when not wasting damage is more important than giving experience to another unit.
Just some things to consider.
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
Maiklas and Caphriel, thanks for the comments. I did think about these points and wrote a little about them in my original post, but perhaps I should have discussed them more fully.
Likewise drake gliders would become a little worse at finishing low health units in high defence (particularly when they need 2 or 3 out of their 3 hits), but also become a little better at finishing low health units in low defence situations. It's not obvious to me which of these is a bigger effect; my guess is that's in the vicinity of neutral, but I'd want to test to discover if that's correct.
If you think my judgement is off on this one, though, do say! Also if you think of any other situations where it would have serious impact which I might have missed.
(Velensk and em3, thanks for the support -- it is useful to discover)
I think that in ideal situations this is what marksman is used for, and in campaigns it may be true that this is most of the time. In multiplayer you don't always have enough units to afford you such efficiency, so while you do have a nerf here (and there are lots of different ways to express the change numerically -- I think the cleanest way of thinking about it is as a cut from a 50% bonus to a 25% one, which I agree is substantial), it should be made up for at least in part by the bonus they get in attacking units on lower defence ground. I'm not sure whether it's actually a nerf overall, but it would change the role of the marksman special a bit (moving from a total specialist at dealing with high defence to a generally good buff which particularly helps against high defence). It may well be that this would be more of a nerf in campaigns, where you tend to have more control of the situation.Maiklas3000 wrote:Marksmen are used most often against 60% defense, IMHO, such as most units on fortress or mountain hexes as well as most flying units.
Assassins would get slightly less effective against dwarves in hills and mountains, however here (as I expressed) the relevant thing is normally hitting once. Against a dwarf in hills (60% defence) the chance of poisoning drops from 93.6% to 87.5%, which is not a huge change. Against that, one would reduce the rate of frustrating failure to poison units caught in the open.Caphriel wrote:Although elusivefoot got mentioned, this would also reduce the effectiveness of the assassin against dwarves in hills and mountains, and assassins are very important in that matchup.
Likewise drake gliders would become a little worse at finishing low health units in high defence (particularly when they need 2 or 3 out of their 3 hits), but also become a little better at finishing low health units in low defence situations. It's not obvious to me which of these is a bigger effect; my guess is that's in the vicinity of neutral, but I'd want to test to discover if that's correct.
If you think my judgement is off on this one, though, do say! Also if you think of any other situations where it would have serious impact which I might have missed.
(Velensk and em3, thanks for the support -- it is useful to discover)
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
The chance of failing to poison a dwarf in the mountains (or any other case of 70% defense) jumps from 6.4% to 21.6%, though. Failing over three times as often; slightly over 1/5 of each attempt. Consider that this is the primary method the Northerners have for removing dwarves from mountains... Similarly, while currently attempting to poison an elf archer in forest may be a good idea, it'd become a lots less of a good idea if you have a 1/5 chance of failing. I don't think the increased odds against targets with low defense balances that out, because the Northerners have other options for dealing with units on low defense.
I'm not saying that this is would be a bad change, but the Northerners in particular rely on the marksman weapon special being good against units with high defense.
I'm not saying that this is would be a bad change, but the Northerners in particular rely on the marksman weapon special being good against units with high defense.
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
While correct, "Failing over three times as often" is kind of misleading, as it's simply the wrong measurement to take here (for example, consider a drop from a 99.99% chance to poison to a 99.96% chance; while failing over three times as often this has a negligible effect on the actual power level). The relevant measure here is the ratio between the success rates, and that shows that the chance of poisoning is about 83.7% what it was before. So this is a nerf which in the worst case (and 70% doesn't come up that much) is less bad than the recent nerf to footpad damage (OK I'm rhetorically overstating my case here a little bit, since sometimes you don't just care about poisoning them) and is balanced by several good effects when you attack the (more frequent) low defences.Caphriel wrote:The chance of failing to poison a dwarf in the mountains (or any other case of 70% defense) jumps from 6.4% to 21.6%, though. Failing over three times as often; slightly over 1/5 of each attempt.
All this said, I would want to watch the effects on the assassin closely.
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
Good point. The 1/5 failure rate was the more relevant bit. Failure rate goes from about 1/19 to 1/5, which is pretty significant. The footpad change was a nerf made for balance reasons, not a nerf made for... well, flavor reasons.
However, while you can say that the lower probability of poisoning units with high defense is balanced by the higher probability of poisoning units with low defense, players generally care more about poisoning the ones with high defense.
However, while you can say that the lower probability of poisoning units with high defense is balanced by the higher probability of poisoning units with low defense, players generally care more about poisoning the ones with high defense.
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
If this were changed in the way suggested, it might be possible to fix the assassin problem by giving it an extra strike. This would raise the chance to poison against units in 60% to almost exactly where it was before. However, then the issue would be its effectiveness against units in the open... at the very least, damage per strike would need to be changed.
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
I considered suggesting that, but then it's damage against elusivefoot units drops. If it's 2-4 instead of 3-3, then it does 3-4 at night against units with -30% blade resist, instead of 5-3. On the other hand, it'd be extremely high probability to poison units on 40% defense. 99.19%, if I did the math right.
-
- Posts: 706
- Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
Changing Marksman in this manner is most certainly a "nerf" regardless of MP or SP. Marksman is designed to dislodge entrenched enemies from highly defensible positions. Particularly with regard to the Orcish Assassin, it is their key way to defeat the Dwarves. This change would make it easier to hit units in the open, which, I'll admit, makes more sense from a realistic viewpoint, but weakens the ability. Who cares if you've got 80% or 70% when poisoning a Drake on grass? As was mentioned above, with three strikes, it makes little difference. However, if the same is applied to a Footpad on a village or a Dwarf on a mountain, the difference between 40% chance to hit and 60% is huge! Those are the cases that really matter.Scatha wrote:In multiplayer you don't always have enough units to afford you such efficiency, so while you do have a nerf here (and there are lots of different ways to express the change numerically -- I think the cleanest way of thinking about it is as a cut from a 50% bonus to a 25% one, which I agree is substantial), it should be made up for at least in part by the bonus they get in attacking units on lower defence ground. I'm not sure whether it's actually a nerf overall, but it would change the role of the marksman special a bit (moving from a total specialist at dealing with high defence to a generally good buff which particularly helps against high defence). It may well be that this would be more of a nerf in campaigns, where you tend to have more control of the situation.
And as far as efficiency of units, MP requires it far more than SP does. You must choose very carefully which units to move where precisely because you have so few. So weakening the ability of a key unit for the Orcs can lead to a domino effect of weakening their entire ability versus Dwarves, Elves, and perhaps even Humans.
Your explanation does makes more sense than the current implementation, though.
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
I like the suggestion, makes more sense.
The assassin-implications however must be thoroughly contemplated. The other marksmen would be less affected, as the just abovementioned "dislodging" is only a relevant tactics in combination with poison.
The assassin-implications however must be thoroughly contemplated. The other marksmen would be less affected, as the just abovementioned "dislodging" is only a relevant tactics in combination with poison.
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
I personally think it's a good idea, explains the background and such much better than the old marksman. However, it remains true that old marksman is the ability always used for dislodging elusivefoot and other high defense units (especially in the orcs' case). Honestly though, i think that it may be a good change to make the orcish assassin actually ABLE to fail. Having an 87.5% chance compared to a... what was it? 97.5% chance to poison something doesn't really make much of a difference (think: shooting at units sitting in water), and it also reduces the frustration of a next-to garuantee that at least one of your units is going to get poisoned every time an assassin pops up. I honestly don't think that it's really an issue fighting dwarves, because there are so few mountain hexes on most maps anyway, and you still have a ridiculous cth.
With non-poisoning marksmen, this could have a bigger negative effect, especially with elves. while it's true that elves have the ability to buy magi, players rarely do because they're too slow to keep up with the rest of an elvish force in, say a forest. My elvish armies are always powered along by at least 2 marksmen (in campaigns) and it's always one of my high priorities to get one (in mp). This would drastically reduce their combat effectiveness in their intended area of excellence (dislodging elusivefoot units and other units with high defense). Granted, it would make slaughtering hordes of cavalry a whole lot easier but that's unimportant, seeing as elves have ridiculous amount of archers in their armies. If you can fix that thing with the elves' balance, then I'm 100% behind this, but otherwise i still think it's a good idea.
Thumbs-up
With non-poisoning marksmen, this could have a bigger negative effect, especially with elves. while it's true that elves have the ability to buy magi, players rarely do because they're too slow to keep up with the rest of an elvish force in, say a forest. My elvish armies are always powered along by at least 2 marksmen (in campaigns) and it's always one of my high priorities to get one (in mp). This would drastically reduce their combat effectiveness in their intended area of excellence (dislodging elusivefoot units and other units with high defense). Granted, it would make slaughtering hordes of cavalry a whole lot easier but that's unimportant, seeing as elves have ridiculous amount of archers in their armies. If you can fix that thing with the elves' balance, then I'm 100% behind this, but otherwise i still think it's a good idea.
Thumbs-up
Re: [Mainline] Replace the 'Marksman' weapon special
I am not experienced enough to say much about this idea, but I'd like to point something out:
Scatha wrote:Moreover there already exist situations of guaranteed kills: ulfzerkers attacking dark adepts.
Theoretically, it's possible for a DA to survive an ulfserker attack.Wesnoth help wrote:berserk
Whether used offensively or defensively, this attack presses the engagement until of the combatants is slain, or 30 rounds of attacks have occurred.
Last edited by Kranix on May 18th, 2011, 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.