Balance changes for Wesnoth 1.20

[Dalas120]

Actually giving hi -10% dodge everywhere and 30% ranged parry is fine.

I would rather see just flat % ranged damage reduction than chance for it but idea would be similar. That can be done.

While I can't speak for others, I support these ideas. I agree that the HI would be much more "lore-friendly" with the proposed movetype nerf and this proposed ability that reduces ranged damage, rather than the original -10%/+20% parry.

How about no quick but fearless?

For the purposes of SP I would have preferred 4mp, but I understand if that's not really an option for MP. Fearless but no Quick sounds OK to me. (Maybe even musthave Fearless? I know I keep pushing that suggestion)

For SP campaigns, if possible I would also prefer keeping the HI's cost high (or even raising it?) while retaining either their 10% impact resist, their original movetype/melee dodge, or (even better) both. Is that practical for MP?

[Temuchin Khan]

I don't usually comment in balance change threads, but I did comment earlier in this one, so I just wanted to add few more observations

Elvish Archer 10% blade is extremely odd: basically no elf unit (and elvish fighter line in particular) has any armour, suddenly, the archer has.

But I need this for balance, sorry. And its not that it now has "armour", it just is better agains that type of damage.

Still, it breaks consistency with both other elves, and other factions' visibly-more-armored archers.

Maybe if the rebels desperately need something for the drake matchup, maybe the new quickcaster line could get a third attack that deals cold damage? This will also help make them stand out from sorceresses more.

I really like Forest Dragon's idea here. Giving the Quickcaster Mage a cold attack sounds like a good alternate solution to Rebels-Drakes match-ups.

As for the concerns raised about whether the changes make sense given the existing Fencer and Elvish Archer sprites, could some of that be alleviated if the sprites for those units were altered to show them wearing gambesons? Heavy, quilted cloth would be a reasonable alternative to both leather and iron, one that was often used historically, as well.

As for the Heavy Infantry, I feel like I can see both sides of the argument but not a qay to resolve all the concerns raised.

Just my two cents.

[Temuchin Khan]

I don't usually comment in balance change threads, but I did comment earlier in this one, so I just wanted to add few more observations

Elvish Archer 10% blade is extremely odd: basically no elf unit (and elvish fighter line in particular) has any armour, suddenly, the archer has.

But I need this for balance, sorry. And its not that it now has "armour", it just is better agains that type of damage.

Still, it breaks consistency with both other elves, and other factions' visibly-more-armored archers.

Maybe if the rebels desperately need something for the drake matchup, maybe the new quickcaster line could get a third attack that deals cold damage? This will also help make them stand out from sorceresses more.

I really like Forest Dragon's idea here. Giving the Quickcaster Mage a cold attack sounds like a good alternate solution to Rebels-Drakes match-ups.

As for the concerns raised about whether the changes make sense given the existing Fencer and Elvish Archer sprites, could some of that be alleviated if the sprites for those units were altered to show them wearing gambesons? Heavy, quilted cloth would be a reasonable alternative to both leather and iron, one that was often used historically, as well.

As for the Heavy Infantry, I feel like I can see both sides of the argument but not a qay to resolve all the concerns raised.

Just my two cents.

Finally, was it implied earlier that these proposed changes can be playtested in the Wesnoth Sub-Factions add-on? Just looking for clarification about that.

[ForestDragon]

I really like Forest Dragon's idea here. Giving the Quickcaster Mage a cold attack sounds like a good alternate solution to Rebels-Drakes match-ups.

Thank you, glad you like it! I believe it would be a much more elegant solution against drakes than the 10% blade resistance buff which opens up a lot of thematic problems.

As for the concerns raised about whether the changes make sense given the existing Fencer and Elvish Archer sprites, could some of that be alleviated if the sprites for those units were altered to show them wearing gambesons? Heavy, quilted cloth would be a reasonable alternative to both leather and iron, one that was often used historically, as well.

I think if a balance change forces redrawing whole sprites to make it make any thematic sense, it's even more questionable of a balance change.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

I disagree with Roge that we should buff Mages and scale down Horsemen instead of simply making Mages cheaper. Horsemen's Charge makes them a bit tough to scale down and they're scary enough as-is with their high damage per hex, even if I don't think they're used that much. 19 is still pretty costly, so if the "feel" is so important, then I don't think it would be ruined by such a change.

Horsemen are ridiculously expensive but die like flies. It wouldn't be that bad if defender reatliated not with all of their hits, but only with amount equal to attacker, as it is in AoW, but I digress. They don't have soft counters, only hard ones, and this restricts their use even more. But lorewise they are more numerous than mages. As for the exact costs, I don't like indivisible numbers, so I was partially speaking from that point of view.

I dont agree here, if archer was the best it would have been used as main unit instead of figher who would be used in matchups in which pierce damage is bad. But thats not the case and figher is main unit anywhere.

Well, not that many units have ranged attack at all, and many of whose who have are weak at it compared to dedicated ranged units. If Fighters were good at dodging as Archers are, it would have more sense, but in RNG-heavy game like that, main stats are hp and damage, resistance goes as part of the former, and Archers exceed Fighters in their main abilty - to dish out as much damage as possible while taking less hits in response, which ranged units are inherently better at. And I've remebered that only elven mages are vulnerable to iron, except Lords, so they have even less need in armor.

I very much get the point, the problem with it is that 20 damage thuderer suddenly two shots even 40 hp units and units most of the time have less hp. Maybe it would be balanced but I just dont think it would feel fun.

Well, otherwise people will recruit more of them and hit the wall of rutless RNG. They are already frustrating most of the time, that's why Scouts are the best dwarven ranged units.

It would require quiet big changes for horseman and i already deal with enough lore problems. If you can convince others, maybe but still likely no.

What problems exactly and why?

That would make it even worse against dwarf since they already rely on impact damage to deal with it.

Dwarves have the movement, healing and number advantage over HI, for me it balances out the resistances. Also, reducing slashing resistance will make Scouts more useful against them.

Yes. It also was that they have expensive clothes that can stop some impact damage.

Speaking from personal experience, cloth armor doesn't work this way. It has to be layers and layers of cloth to absorb impact damage to that extend.

This has one very good point, buffing level 1 would increase the xp requirement for leveling. I think that might be important for others to know.

I don't think increasing XP to level 2 is nessesary. Maybe decreasing their ranged damage by 1, to reflect their lore of not being particularly good at shooting, but making them cheaper, to like 13 gp, yes, individable number, but it's better than 17 or 19 imo.

If you cant convince me you get the change. It doesnt matter how much you demand it. Any kind of numbers preasure doesnt work no me at all anymore. How can I know that you arent just coordinated to [...] with me after last events? :sip: You either have arguments or you dont, numbers dont do anything. But honestly Im satisfied with interactions with anyone but 3 people so far. So thank you for keeping it civil and nice. However it seems that some people start to try and preasure with preasure and not arguments.

Well, if roughly half of playerbase won't be satisfied with these changes, and roughly half of the playerbase play mainly SP campaigns, someone could rise and provide them what they need in the form of mod, and your work would be well recieved only by another half. That would sound frustrating to me, and we don't need this divide and I think neither do you. This may sound a bit populistic, but I've been out of touch with the game and it's community for like three years, and the reason I fell out was the change of artstyle of main menu, map, UI and some units in 1.12+, and I failed to implement legacy style in the new versions with all it's possibilites for content creation, and only recently thanks to Konrad2 I felt a pull back, and now I'm having a great time with something to keep my mind busy, other than dewelling on things I still don't really like. I don't say these changes are that drastic, but still, they have a potential to do something like that.
All I want from this is the game to prosper, and to preserve the legacy I hold so close to heart. Sorry if it is a bit long or rantish.

[Vendrick]

I think there's a few issues with Parry / Accuracy:
(1) Units can now reach 0% and 100% chance to hit in mainline, but currently only in edge cases.
(2) How does Parry interact with Magical and Marksman?
The Dunefolk Falconer's Distraction already reduces the CTH of both, but the Quenoth Mystic's Daze doesn't.
Does a unit with -10% Parry always have a minimum 60% or a 70% chance of being hit by a unit with Marksman?
(3) Parry (an issue shared with Marksman and Magical) makes it harder to eyeball the odds of a unit surviving.

I don't think I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea, but in practice there a lot of other levers to change how units perform.
The Dune Burner's 5x2 melee attack with a -10% accuracy could just as easily be weakened by lowering strikes or damage. Why does it need its own special ability to reduce the expected value of its melee attack damage by 1?

A small note on resistances (partly an UI issue): setting aside gameplay balance, it is better for unit stats to be consistent with fluff and intuitive as a matter of theming and making unit stats easier to remember. I generally like the new-ish Dunefolk roster, but it is a drag to frequently check unit cards because resistances keep shuffling around.

[Mechanical]

I don't like the direction the balance of Wesnoth is moving in. It seems to me that Hejnewar himself creates a problem, then solves it by creating a new one. A prime example is the orc archer. The experience change at level 2 broke SP content with orcs. I myself am the author of two orc campaigns, and I've heard the same opinion from other authors and players in our projects. Now instead of rolling back the experience buff (which would be the easiest and most logical solution) Hejnewar is proposing to nerf level 3. In my opinion, this is not quite the right approach, and balance changes should be handled more responsibly.

[Anekron]

I think Vendrick managed to condense the problem with parry better than I did (but I had a Discord chat with Hejne as well to clarify my position).

As for my proposal, I'm totally fine with ranged damage reduction ability proposal. For the record, I'm not a fan of absorb as well, but it being available only on a comparatively rare unit means it doesn't bother me that much. I'd support scrapping it and giving the nagas either the same ability as HI, or even something like slow or stun (though the number of shield strikes would probably need to be increased to make it useful).

As for the Slurbows, I'd much rather see their XP reqs climb somewhere around 60 at least, though I realise this is just a case of SP and MP experience going against one another. I get that Slurbows in MP are fun, but they're not fun in SP. I don't necessarily think SP should automatically come before MP in this regard, I'm only voicing my SP-centric opinion. Even your proposal to nerf the fire dmg would be better than nothing in regards to my campaign where Slurbows can trivialise the undead.

As for the Elvish Archer, I think the suggestion of making Quickcaster do cold damage is a sound one. I think most ways of buffing the archer directly can influence other matchups in a negative way.

[Hejnewar]

While I can't speak for others, I support these ideas. I agree that the HI would be much more "lore-friendly" with the proposed movetype nerf and this proposed ability that reduces ranged damage, rather than the original -10%/+20% parry.

Thats good.

For the purposes of SP I would have preferred 4mp, but I understand if that's not really an option for MP. Fearless but no Quick sounds OK to me. (Maybe even musthave Fearless? I know I keep pushing that suggestion)

Thats actually managable. This is basically liminal buff. But in that case as second mod or separate 3rd mod? Cuz then Hi has only like 3 traits. Unless we give it like something special.

keeping the HI's cost high

There is solide reason not to do that and why you never see 20g 5 mp units with nothing but stats, there always has to be something extra or an ability. So lets explain it. The reason is a unit like that is an extreme brick that is hard to remove and is scary to attack. So it can lead to stalling matchups and not a fun experience. Even tree does that but only in certain matchups and im trying to mitigate it a bit anyway. Hi would really need a strong ability preferably non combat one to be more expensive.

I really like Forest Dragon's idea here. Giving the Quickcaster Mage a cold attack sounds like a good alternate solution to Rebels-Drakes match-ups.

Already expaline why Im not doing that.

Fencer sprites

Honestly it quiet old.

Finally, was it implied earlier that these proposed changes can be playtested in the Wesnoth Sub-Factions add-on? Just looking for clarification about that.

1.20 Multiplayer Content & Changes, sub-factions are a part of that, there are also new maps the balance changes with Default 1.20 and there will be more stuff in the future. Basically everything concerning MP.

What problems exactly and why?

Because the horseman is really strong. And is really good at what it does. In fact it is prime example of unit that I would like to see more of, that makes the MUs dynamic. Even reducing the damage by 1 is a big change for the unit.

Scouts are the best dwarven ranged units.

Yet they cant have them cuz they already struggle with damage types and horses.

which ranged units are inherently better at

And thats why they cost more.

I think there's a few issues with Parry / Accuracy:

1) Very rare but imo thats fine.
2) Both use keyword "always" and both come before parry as a specials. They work exacly as stated treating parry as nonexistent stat just considering current attack / unit status. Actually Daze reduces but accuracy and parry of unit hit.

easily be weakened by lowering strikes or damage

The alternative was removal of melee attack.

As for the Slurbows, I'd much rather see their XP reqs climb somewhere around 60 at least, though I realise this is just a case of SP and MP experience going against one another. I get that Slurbows in MP are fun, but they're not fun in SP. I don't necessarily think SP should automatically come before MP in this regard, I'm only voicing my SP-centric opinion. Even your proposal to nerf the fire dmg would be better than nothing in regards to my campaign where Slurbows can trivialise the undead.

+2 (14) raned pierce damage, +10 (66) hp, 50 gold cost, 59 xp.

I think most ways of buffing the archer directly can influence other matchups in a negative way.

Please try or play some mp games.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

Because the horseman is really strong. And is really good at what it does. In fact it is prime example of unit that I would like to see more of, that makes the MUs dynamic. Even reducing the damage by 1 is a big change for the unit.

I asked primarily for lore reasons, I see your point regarding the balance, but their strength costs them their lives. If they could survive horse's death, rise, pick up their weapons and fight on foot, and it concerns all other mounted units it wouldn't be an issue, but thats not for now.

Yet they cant have them cuz they already struggle with damage types and horses.

What do you mean by that?

And thats why they cost more.

Humans are second best archer in the world, and they cost as much as melee fighters, like spearmen, whom elves don't use for some reason.

[Hejnewar]

I asked primarily for lore reasons, I see your point regarding the balance, but their strength costs them their lives. If they could survive horse's death, rise, pick up their weapons and fight on foot, and it concerns all other mounted units it wouldn't be an issue, but thats not for now.

For lore reasons ask Dalas. I really dont know.

What do you mean by that?

Well you see, they only have weak poacher as a source of pierce damage if not for thunderer. And both do very different things. Thats why it is needed.

Humans are second best archer in the world, and they cost as much as melee fighters, like spearmen, whom elves don't use for some reason.

When it comes to bowman, it deals less damage and has less hp overall thats its payment instead of gold. Also dont ask me why eleve dont use spearman, no lore expert here.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

Well you see, they only have weak poacher as a source of pierce damage if not for thunderer. And both do very different things. Thats why it is needed.

Poacher isn't half that bad, it is much stronger in melee than it's loyal counterpart once it beats level 2, and it takes less XP for him to do that, plus they have some good resistances and movement costs human archers don't have, for the same price. Yes, they are less durable as they progress compared to archer line, but not that much.

When it comes to bowman, it deals less damage and has less hp overall thats its payment instead of gold.

The only advantage orcish archers have over human ones are their gold and costs and, movetype and additional damage type that deals more damage per hit but less per attack. No matter loyalists or outlaws. Even Merfolk and Nagas outshoot them.

[Dalas120]

On Mages - they are even rarer than Horsemen, and these are the strongest human units; here, as with the Thunderers, rather than make them cheaper, buff their melee attack to like 5x2 and make Horsmen cheaper.

I asked primarily for lore reasons, I see your point regarding the balance, but their strength costs them their lives. If they could survive horse's death, rise, pick up their weapons and fight on foot, and it concerns all other mounted units it wouldn't be an issue, but thats not for now.

For lore reasons ask Dalas. I really dont know.

I agree with where you're coming from, but I don't feel it's a serious lore issue for Mages to be cheaper than Horsemen. While Horsemen are definitely more plentiful in-universe, compared to mages they also consume a lot more food and require a lot more equipment - both factors that could plausbly lead to their higher cost.

The only advantage orcish archers have over human ones are their gold and costs and, movetype and additional damage type that deals more damage per hit but less per attack.

Having access to fire damage is VERY significant though.

The alternative was removal of melee attack.

I remember you mentioning this in the original post as well. While I'm not an expert on Dunefolk, I think that removing the melee attack feels preferrable, and I would support that.

+2 (14) raned pierce damage, +10 (66) hp, 50 gold cost, 59 xp.

This seems reasonable to me. I also appreciate that it makes their HP similar to the Master Bowman - 56 HP felt unusually low for a high-level orc.

While I can't speak for others, I support these ideas. I agree that the HI would be much more "lore-friendly" with the proposed movetype nerf and this proposed ability that reduces ranged damage, rather than the original -10%/+20% parry.

Thats good.

Great! Then, getting into details, what sort of ability would this need to be? Did you have something specific in mind?

Or alternatively, is there any way to alter Steadfast and possibly the HI's base resistances to achieve a similar effect, without breaking the Dwarvish Guardsman? Steadfast is basically only used on the Guardsman line (Hoplites don't count) so ideally we could use that one ability for two major unit lines, instead of creating a new separate-but-similar ability. UMC would be a concern, however.

This is basically liminal buff. But in that case as second mod or separate 3rd mod? Cuz then Hi has only like 3 traits. Unless we give it like something special.

I'd been thinking only fearless+intelligent, fearless+resilient, and fearless+strong. I feel that's the simplest option, but I don't feel too strongly about it if you think something else makes sense.

There is solide reason not to do that and why you never see 20g 5 mp units with nothing but stats, there always has to be something extra or an ability. So lets explain it. The reason is a unit like that is an extreme brick that is hard to remove and is scary to attack. So it can lead to stalling matchups and not a fun experience.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense. I was literally thinking "let's make it a brick", but your explanation makes it clear why such a design would cause problems.

Would 18g/19g and 10% impact resist be acceptable, or still too brick-ish? As you mentioned in a previous post, I do have concerns about a 0% impact resist HI (particularly if the unarmored Fencer ALSO has 0%).

Or hey, here's a really random idea: what about buffing the bejeezus out of the HI but doubling/tripling their upkeep? That would prevent stalling (I think?) and is probably the most "historically-accurate" way to go ...although I admit messing with upkeep is likely too weird to add into core.

[dwarftough]

The only problem for me here is that I still compare it with other units and apply the same standard. And it by far is the weakest thus it requires lowest xp.

I dont agree here, if archer was the best it would have been used as main unit instead of figher who would be used in matchups in which pierce damage is bad. But thats not the case and figher is main unit anywhere.

That sounds pretty strange, archer should be compared by the same standard because it has a different role in the faction. It's not supposed to be a main unit. And for its ranged support role its power increased too much.

Bruh, replays of 1.20 changes. However thru you answer I can deduce that they didnt. Actually what all those experts balanced in their lives actually when it comes to 1v1? Thats actually well balanced now?

To be honest, I can't understand what balance you make then. If we talk about 1v1 MP balance, the two last communities of 1v1 are Ladder (still active), WesnothLife (mostly inactive). It seems logical to use years of experise of the best players of both communities, to consult them. But your tone about them seem to be extremely unwelcoming. How do you even suppose to balance 1v1 in this case?

The "Playing and balacing is not the same" line is the default reply by you about these situations but it becomes just absurd. You need to keep in touch with players when you do balancing. You want to have more tangible evidence and metrics to guide and support your work, as much as possible. We don't have that in this proposal. We have some problems stated (some of them well-known but many are just listed), we have some solutions. There is no evidence about many of the problems, at least about them being so much trouble. And we don't have any metric to control how the supposed changes fix it. Feels like we're supposed to just believe.

Also, this line of thought "people don't play the changes => they have no right to criticize them => they will be added to the game", as far as I understand your reasoning in your posts, is very flawed. A bit more on that later.

obviously people dont really play add-ons in a major way right now

That's just plain wrong. The August MP report shows 5 add-on maps in TOP-10. And it's just in TOP-10.

That's not dodge.

Yes thats parry.

Parry is translated into a reduced chance to hit, which is basically dodge. It doesn't change things if it comes from some other game engine feature called parry, on the basic level it's increased dodge. And it looks silly on HI, with your proposed parry it's 70% defense on castle against ranged attacks. Fencer's level of evasion! And I won't repeat, just mention, all UX problems parry entails.

My job is balance and creation of engaging and balanced environoment in mp right now. But how many people even played it to even judge that. Quick replay search says no one except me.

If people don't play it, then it's not engaging. If people are interested in something and like it, they play. If not, they don't. Numbers, especially numbers in context and in dynamic, say it all. In this regard it starts looking ridiculous as well: if this is a balance for a thing nobody plays (or a small faction of players play), then why should it break SP, all lore and consistency? If it's made for the mode nobody even plays, why should it have priority?

I wont respond to the same point 5 times since people use the same argumesnt I already responed to - read. Thats just waste of time.

People might not agree with your argument. About Orcish Crossbowman many people say that it's pretty okay how it was in 1.16, a slight buff (so a slight nerf after 1.18 overbuff) will seal the deal. But you keep saying that you don't agree and propose all different kinds of changes to the crossbowman. People express their concerns with parry, with its thematicity and its UX, with its interactions with well-established abilities like magic - and you insist it's just fine.

Overall, my summary on the changes and the following discussion is this: There are some problems stated. In my opinion most of them not really significant, especially for non-MP context. And the proposed solution create so much more confusion and problems, that it's not worth it, at all. 1.16 balance was okay, it wasn't perfect, but still it was fine.

Also, taking a bit of a programmer's prospective. Mainline units, the core, it's not just content, it's a basic library, a standard library shared by every modder and every player here. Making changes to it, and especially to existing content to it, should be done with extreme care and only if it's absolutely necessary.

If you cant convince me you get the change.

And now this. This is an extremely flawed attitude that goes against the spirit of the open-source. This is a game developed by a community of volunteers. But you act like you own the mainline, the stats of units, like it's your own game. That it's you who should be convinced to not do something. That you should be provided sufficient arguments to consider changing a thing many active people disagreed with. This disregard of a very active and diverse part of the community feels pretty disturbing and disappointing.

[Hejnewar]

And now this. This is an extremely flawed attitude that goes against the spirit of the open-source. This is a game developed by a community of volunteers. But you act like you own the mainline, the stats of units, like it's your own game. That it's you who should be convinced to not do something. That you should be provided sufficient arguments to consider changing a thing many active people disagreed with. This disregard of a very active and diverse part of the community feels pretty disturbing and disappointing.

XD No its perfect. At this point I dont think u read posts other than my own in this topic because the post above you is literally the result of me standing my ground and instead talking with people to find common solution. And we do. Actually I dont think there is even much left to discuss!

Instead it is your attude of that is disappointing as a community manager who should be pushing for community and devs to find common ground. As you decided to push just me to give in into demands. As if I would do that.

The "Playing and balacing is not the same" line is the default reply by you about these situations but it becomes just absurd.

Ok if it is the same then why arent eras with good players balanced perfectly?

We don't have that in this proposal.

Why dont you help me provide them?

Feels like we're supposed to just believe.

You clearly are not. You have the era that you can play, you have 1,5 years to test it. If that is not enough then what can I do? Im sure my words are less convincing than experience?

5 add-on maps

Yeah maps lol.

Also, taking a bit of a programmer's prospective.

I wanted separate era for default mp, you were against it. Now I see some people in this thread bringing that back up and Im again in favour of it. But are you?