New title: Discussing some proposed 1.20 high-level mage stat changes

[white_haired_uncle]

A necromancy-themed mage should stand behind waves of undead minions while bolstering them with powerful magic and debilitating their enemies with spells, not tanking damage from the frontline.

I would think so. Not a frontline unit, but one who steps out of the "shadows" to kill and re-animate units which are already near death. I would think the effort/training/experience/whatever to re-animate would preclude an emphasis on advancing skills like attacks/defense/resistances. And since walking corpses are probably pretty mindless, the necro would also need to expend energy controlling his minions, lest they start attacking their own team/allies (at least when said are not also undead).

I expected Darkens to be a popular suggestion, but in all honesty it's not my favorite. I think it feels a little too similar to Illuminates, and thematically it's a little weird to *remove* light (compared to *creating* light). At least that's my opinion.

I don't think you remove light so much as block/diffuse it, like a cloud or a fog or I guess some sort of darkening aura kind of thing. Or perhaps you simply weaken the source(s) of illumination (at least with the exception of the sun(s) and stars).

[Dalas120]

Tentative PR created, with proposed changes to the Necromancer (and some other high-level mages): https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/pull/9300

[Hejnewar]

If you are nerfing necro for purpose of better balance of campaing but not nerfing lich then I will feel like this is just an excuse. Also I dont like removing choice from games and this necro change effectively does that by removing the choice of what attack should be used.

[Dalas120]

I have to disagree that the proposed Necro changes would be a nerf. While the raw numbers are lower, more readily available plague makes it easier to spawn walking corpses, which in turn drastically reduces the amount of damage your higher-level units take (particularly vs the AI).

My goal was to keep the Necro's power level similar to 1.18 (and stronger than 1.16). If you do feel this would be a nerf, I could certainly raise some stats back up.

I also disagree that this reduces choice - I feel the proposed changes increase it:
1) With plague on Shadow Wave but not on Chill Wave, the player will occasionally have to choose between a higher chance of killing vs the possibility of plaguing.
2) Plague is sometimes a negative. The player will need to decide whether it's more valuable to gain a new Walking Corpse, or to leave the hex open for more aggression / to take with a powerful defensive unit.
3) Meanwhile, even though the Necro's melee attack is less unique, it's still a melee attack - vs enemies with powerful ranged weapons, the player will have to weigh the increased odds of plaguing with Shadow Wave vs the low retaliation damage of Plague Staff (though admittedly this is fairly niche)

(also, this github ban/block/whatever has been going on for way too long)

[Hejnewar]

Do you want to know my dark secret?

Necromancer is still slightly too weak compared to lich. With my stats. It would only be fine if WC creation rate was 100% (well almost). Even if you swich it to different attack, just like you said you might not even want that so you are NEVER reaching 100%. This Necro still needs slight buff to be 100% equals with lich this is how powerful that bony***** is. You dont get 90g for nothing, even buffed enchantress was only 70.

I also disagree that this reduces choice - I feel the proposed changes increase it

Nah I dont like it, it is more boring, there is lower opportunity cost for getting free bodies now and all you said was also the case for melee attack but more. It was cool lore that plague goes by hand. I would rather properly buff Necro again to match lich fully.

(also, this github ban/block/whatever has been going on for way too long)

Proper term is flag (also called shadowban - which means that stuff works but Im invisible to others), which means that my account will be reviewed if I request it essentially. It was, I got the possitive result of being unflagged (that took like 4 months), but they forgot to remove the flag. XD

[Dalas120]

Necromancer is still slightly too weak compared to lich. With my stats. It would only be fine if WC creation rate was 100% (well almost).

I disagree, but I also won't complain about buffs. How would you feel about leaving its Chill Wave damage at 19x2, or even raising it to 20x2? (which would also increase the plague opportunity cost)

I wonder if part of our differing opinions might stem from playing against players compared to AIs. I would expect players to mostly ignore a lone WC, as they're not much of a threat compared to the Necro itself. But the AI really loves killing WCs, and will gladly waste 25+ damage and valuable open hexes overkilling a single plagued corpse.

Nah I dont like it, it is more boring, there is lower opportunity cost for getting free bodies now and all you said was also the case for melee attack but more.

In my experience, on 1.16/1.18 the player never really has to make hard choices, because the melee is almost always the wrong choice. Low-hp-but-not-dead enemies are a precious resource, and feeding one to a Necro means you're NOT feeding that kill to a low-level undead - which really screws you over in the long-term.

And don't forget that the Soulless exists. 7x3 melee plague, fearless and expendable (though only 4mp), and using its plague doesn't sacrifice 19x2 cold damage.

If the existing Necro's plague melee was strong enough to be a unit-defining ability, I wouldn't care at all about adding plague to Shadow Wave. But I don't think it is, and therefore I do.

TLDR: plague on 6x3 melee Necro is too weak to compete with its ranged attacks, so the player almost never has to choose.

I would rather properly buff Necro again to match lich fully.

I'm all for buffing the Necro, but I think it would be an incredible shame if the Necro was just "Lich but meatier". For a unit themed around necromancy, can we not make it play a more interesting role?


Necromancer aside, what's your opinion on the other proposed changes? I know you were heavily involved in 1.18 the Shyde/Enchantress/Sylph changes, but I'm not clear if that was for balance reasons or otherwise.

[white_haired_uncle]

I wonder if part of our differing opinions might stem from playing against players compared to AIs. I would expect players to mostly ignore a lone WC, as they're not much of a threat compared to the Necro itself. But the AI really loves killing WCs, and will gladly waste 25+ damage and valuable open hexes overkilling a single plagued corpse.

I only play against AI, and I've always thought that distracting the AI, or just getting in the AI's way, was the whole point of the WC. Unless somehow you can make a ton of them, then it's fun to watch a battle turn as the enemies own units rise and turn on them, but I think that's only going to happen in a scenario that's designed for that.

[Hejnewar]

My difference in opinion comes mainly form the fact that I simply like the melee Necro more as a unit and in lore. Difference in stats comes Frome the fact that your proposal makes Necro like 65g unit while loch stays at 90g. I also like the defensive aspect of melee Necro.

I don't care as much about other changes. There it only matters to me that the level ups are equal with nice gold cost and xp. But that can be done later. So whatever.

The previous changes were for lore reason where I only initially wanted to change gold and xp but xp was too low after changes. So whatever.

[lhybrideur]

Should we nerf the lich then?

[Dalas120]

Should we nerf the lich then?

I don't think either Hejnewar or I feels the Lich needs to be nerfed. We disagree on how powerful the proposed Necro stats are, but I think we'd both like the Necro to be similar in power to the current Lich.

My difference in opinion comes mainly form the fact that I simply like the melee Necro more as a unit and in lore.

Do you have suggestions for keeping Plague only on melee? I'm fine with doing so, as long as we can make the Necro play a more interesting role than "Lich but meatier." As-is, I feel that the current Necro's plague barely makes any difference in how the unit is used.

Difference in stats comes Frome the fact that your proposal makes Necro like 65g unit while loch stays at 90g.

Anecdotal, but I went and played SotA's "Against the World" on Normal difficulty a couple of times, first with 2 Ancient Liches and 7 Liches, then with 2 Ancient Liches, 3 Liches, and 4 Necros (with the proposed 19x2 cold damage).

I lost horribly on both playthroughs (I didn't recruit any units except for the Liches/Necros), but got further when I had Necros than when I didn't. The stakes were low enough that it could have easily been caused by RNG, but I definitely didn't feel like I was gimped by having the 4 Necros vs having 4 more Liches - anecdotally, at least.

[Hejnewar]

Do you have suggestions for keeping Plague only on melee? I'm fine with doing so, as long as we can make the Necro play a more interesting role than "Lich but meatier." As-is, I feel that the current Necro's plague barely makes any difference in how the unit is used.

I guess you are already keeping it anyway heh. Just reminder that Necromancer is RiPLB of DS. Still kinda thinking bout it tho.

That said, Slow is really strong, and I'm open to going with +1 damage instead of +1 strike (or not buffing the attacks at all). +1 damage is also a smaller change from the preexisting stats, which is probably a good thing. I'll give a little time for others to weigh in.

Slow attack is strong by its slow ability, to slow it's enough to hit even once, so +1 strike is strong

This is actually not at all true. I guess noone there really thought how this works but. Slow is extremally top heavy special meaning that most of its value comes with the first strike. Each subsequent strike gets less and less value. Change from 4 to 5 is barely noticable. For simplicity of calculations lets assume that slow with 2 strikes is worth 3,75 and that average dodge is 50% (closer to ~46% so 50% is actually better case for multi attacks strong).
Strikes - Chance to remain unharmed - value
1 - 50% - 2,5
2 - 25% - 3,75
3 - 12,5% - 4,375
4 - 6,25% - 4,6875
5 - 3,125% - 4,84375
...
x - 100% - 5

As you can see the chance to apply slow is not getting up much with additional strikes past some point and in fact at 100% CTH slow would still only be at 5. This is pretty accurate for support use case. However in case of defensive use case it isnt really since power of hitting earlier strike is even more important.

Slow scales with strength of the enemy unit.

L1 - 3,75
L2 - 7,5
L3 - varies wildly but ~11,25-15

However in mp even if you have L3 unit, you would still be slowing L1 units anyway if anything so the value of slow hardly changes there.

So yeah I advice caution.

Ancient Lich on flat 14 out of 20 tries

Because of type advantage. Like water beats fire and fire beats grass. I get why people use this as a measuremant but thats not really descriptive of the overall game state.

[Dalas120]

Post title changed, as requested.

I guess you are already keeping it anyway heh. Just reminder that Necromancer is RiPLB of DS. Still kinda thinking bout it tho.

Ya, I never meant to remove it from the melee (it is called "Plague Staff" after all), only to add it to the arcane. I should have been more clear about that; sorry for the misunderstanding.

Slow is extremally top heavy special meaning that most of its value comes with the first strike. Each subsequent strike gets less and less value.

I agree that this is very true when attacking a powerful ranged defender (e.g. Sylph vs Great Mage) or defending against ranged attacks. Though if used against units like Royal Guards or Orcish Warlords, I think it doesn't really matter which strike hits as long as any strike hits.

Slow scales with strength of the enemy unit.
However in mp even if you have L3 unit, you would still be slowing L1 units anyway if anything so the value of slow hardly changes there.

Great point; thanks for bringing that up. In SP as well you'll often be facing against L1s as well (though not nearly as often as MP), in which case slow is a lot weaker too.

So yeah I advice caution.

Do you have any thoughts on what the Sylph's attacks should be? I'd been hoping to differentiate her from the Great Mage / Ancient Lich by leaning into her slowing attack, but maybe that's not the right idea (or maybe it's the right idea but wrong execution).

[Hejnewar]

I agree that this is very true. But when used offensively vs units like Royal Guards or Orcish Warlords, I think it doesn't really matter which strike hits as long as any strike hits.

Eh. I just explained and showed. Each additional strike gives you half the value of the provious one. So 5th one does not really much. This was the exact support case I was talking about. The defensive one is just even better than that.

Do you have any thoughts on what the Sylph's attacks should be? I'd been hoping to differentiate her from the Great Mage / Ancient Lich by leaning into her slowing attack, but maybe that's not the right idea (or maybe it's the right idea but wrong execution).

Dont you have enough thoughts with everyone having their own opinion on what they should be on github already?

[Dalas120]

This was the exact support case I was talking about. The defensive one is just even better than that.

Ah, yes you did, sorry I missed that. I should have read more and typed less

Dont you have enough thoughts with everyone having their own opinion on what they should be on github already?

Hah, yeah but you have a lot more experience with unit design than most of them do.

[Hejnewar]

Hah, yeah but you have a lot more experience with unit design than most of them do.

Just give me a gold amount you want it to be at. What you think should be changed the most and I will give you numbers. There is not really any design here imo.