Balance changes for Wesnoth 1.20

[Roge_Tebnelok]

AFAIK Dwarvish Scout has never been available in default MP in any version of the game. I don't know the exact reason.

That was the case at least since 1.14, I've just checked. But that doesn't make any sense for me, they are more expensive that it should be, and they may be the best dwarves, but they still have their common weaknesses, and aren't that strong to break the balance. Hejnewar, you are well-versed in MP, can you explain why?

[Hejnewar]

Dune folk actually had pretty ok resistances imo, the new burner resistances are effect of balancing this unit around every other unit / faction and having to make it work. And I could still argue for them.

I don't think changing steadfast is good I would rather just have new ability as I already said, because in fact I still would like to have some kind of interaction with ranges.

Generally rule of thumb is that it is easier to replace positive stuff rather than negative stuff.

Also wesnoth had really low amount of non combat abilities that could fit units. Which kinda makes it hard to replace positive stuff with other positive abilities. But I'm generally rather for new things than against when it comes to abilities.

Honestly I'm not even worried about HI that people discuss. I'm rather concerned for Dune soldier who no one talks about.

...…...__________________________

I'm on phone no quotes.

Because scouts were never in dwarf mp rooster or at least not for a long long time and no one added them and dwarves already have 8 units.

[ForestDragon]

I agree with you about keeping the HI's moves at 4. But Hejnewar asserts 5MP is necessary to make it viable in multiplayer. I don't have enough MP knowledge to from an opinion either way.

Dwarves have 4mp, woses have 4mp, troll whelps have 4mp, and all are units considered viable in multiplayer. So personally I don't see the 4mp as an inherent problem. If anything, it makes the HI more unique compared to other loyalist infantry units. The main problem here seems to be the knalga vs loyalist matchup in terms of damage types.

Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, I also think it's also problematic (though still better than a 0x0 ranged attack with parry) to create a brand new ability that's similar to Steadfast but not quite the same - especially since each of those abilities would only be used by a single unit line in core.

Perhaps one option could be to create a new ability that replaces Steadfast in core, on both the HI and Guardsman (and Hoplite)? That way we could avoid inflating core with extra abilities, but could also keep UMC completely unaffected.

To add onto my point above about the movement cost, I've noticed a pattern in this thread of people trying to offer a large-scale change to address what is at its core a question of the loyalist/knalga MP matchup. I believe this problem should be viewed in that light, and that is how the problem was initially presented by hejne too.

I agree. I also don't love blade resist on the Archer, though I will note that we already have a lot of resistances that aren't strongly supported in the lore. Fencers with 10% cold resist, Pikemen with 40% pierce and Swordsmen with 20% blade/impact despite both having identical armor, Cavalrymen having better resistances than Horsemen but less HP, Humans having 10% arcane resist but Orcs having 0%, basically everything about the Dunefolk...

Mainline resistances aren't perfect, that is true, but many of the cases here are justified.

Fencer is the simplest of the bunch to justify (warm clothes but not good against weapons, while armor is metallic and so won't protect you from the cold)

Swordsman and Pikeman are definitely weird, but they have been in the game for a very long time, and pikeman's 40% pierce resistance is something that some mainline/UMC campaigns are likely balanced around due to it being such a significant stat.

Horseman having more hp is compensated by charge (so you can think of him as having 19 de-facto hp instead of 38 when charging), so in melee fights he is easier to kill than a cavalryman, so I think it does not break theme as badly as it seems on the surface level. and cavalryman's sprite is more visibly armored than horseman's. And also, there's tons of instances in wesnoth of less-armored units having more hp than armored ones, armor quality is usually marked by resistances, while hp is a more general toughness of the unit himself.

[gnombat]

AFAIK Dwarvish Scout has never been available in default MP in any version of the game. I don't know the exact reason.

That was the case at least since 1.14, I've just checked. But that doesn't make any sense for me, they are more expensive that it should be, and they may be the best dwarves, but they still have their common weaknesses, and aren't that strong to break the balance.

I believe it's simply because the Dwarvish Scout was added to mainline recently (relatively speaking - it was more than 10 years ago now) and after the multiplayer factions were already well-established.

[Dalas120]

Mainline resistances aren't perfect, that is true, but many of the cases here are justified.

In the same vein, 10% blade resist on the archer is possible to justify - maybe their bows are specially shaped (in ways that a steel sword can't be) to help parry blows, or maybe they wear slightly better armor because they're considered more elite than Fighters. I still think it's odd though, like most of the other cases in mainline that have to be justified.

The main problem here seems to be the knalga vs loyalist matchup in terms of damage types.

I've noticed a pattern in this thread of people trying to offer a large-scale change to address what is at its core a question of the loyalist/knalga MP matchup. I believe this problem should be viewed in that light, and that is how the problem was initially presented by hejne too.

I agree. While I'd like the HI to be a good choice in MP, if the cost of that is drastically altering the unit I'd much rather leave it unchanged for SP's sake.

In SP, I feel that Dwarves could desperately use something to add variety to the faction. Dwarvish campaigns have only 5 high-level units (and the Runemaster often isn't available), frequently devolving into Lord spam. Bandit campaigns also don't get many high-level units, although it's at least more thematic for them to bring in units from other factions, and the Rogue Mage line helps add variety.

Perhaps tackling the HI multiplayer issue from the Knalgan Alliance side will reduce restrictions on the HI's stats, allowing it to be buffed in simple ways that can make it good in MP without seriously affecting SP. Or perhaps this is once again too complicated, and we should just leave the HI as-is.

On a side note, as the Scout is a SP-only unit, I also wish it could help add a little more variety to the faction instead of being essentially a Thunderer alternative.

Honestly I'm not even worried about HI that people discuss. I'm rather concerned for Dune soldier who no one talks about.

Most of the posters here are coming from a SP background. As Dunefolk are barely used in mainline and AFAIK aren't heavily featured in UMC, I think you're unlikely to get a lot of feedback unless some proper MP players get in here.

That said, a lot of the negative sentiments about Parry on the HI/Burner likely apply to the Dune Soldier as well.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

I believe it's simply because the Dwarvish Scout was added to mainline recently (relatively speaking - it was more than 10 years ago now) and after the multiplayer factions were already well-established.

That's stange. They fit the Knalgan Alliance more than Thieves, the backstab is neat but they don't have skirmisher to capitalize on that until they level up, not that it's hard for them to do, and Footpads are generally better in most of the situations. Thieves are inherently cityfolk, but dwarven cities are completely different beasts. And why do all factions have to limit themselves to 8 unit types, if they aren't all seen on recruit UI anyway?

[ForestDragon]

In the same vein, 10% blade resist on the archer is possible to justify - maybe their bows are specially shaped (in ways that a steel sword can't be) to help parry blows, or maybe they wear slightly better armor because they're considered more elite than Fighters. I still think it's odd though, like most of the other cases in mainline that have to be justified.

So far the proposed lore justifications for the 10% resistance felt rather contrived in my opinion.

Another factor is that it breaks the theme/tradition of elves having 0% resistance to most types of damage, with exceptions for arcane, and pierce in the case of the rider line. It is one of the things that make the elves more distinct from the other races' units. Meanwhile other factions generally already lean more heavily on their resistances, so adding or subtracting resistances there makes less of a thematic impact.

While I'd like the HI to be a good choice in MP, if the cost of that is drastically altering the unit I'd much rather leave it unchanged for SP's sake.

Agreed

In SP, I feel that Dwarves could desperately use something to add variety to the faction. Dwarvish campaigns have only 5 high-level units (and the Runemaster often isn't available), frequently devolving into Lord spam. Bandit campaigns also don't get many high-level units, although it's at least more thematic for them to bring in units from other factions, and the Rogue Mage line helps add variety.

Yeah, factions that use multiple races to fill different roles tend to suffer from this when a story demands only the main race is available.

Perhaps tackling the HI multiplayer issue from the Knalgan Alliance side will reduce restrictions on the HI's stats, allowing it to be buffed in simple ways that can make it good in MP without seriously affecting SP.

Exactly.

As Dunefolk are barely used in mainline and AFAIK aren't heavily featured in UMC, I think you're unlikely to get a lot of feedback unless some proper MP players get in here.

On top of that, there is also the fact that dunefolk are newer than the default factions, and the fact that dunefolk are in a separate era means even many MP players don't have as much experience/interest in the units. Meanwhile loyalists and rebels are very old classic factions, and are very much a core part of wesnoth's identity, so naturally people on average are more invested in those factions than the dunefolk.

That said, a lot of the negative sentiments about Parry on the HI/Burner likely apply to the Dune Soldier as well.

Yes, it does matter in terms of precedent of what is normal for low-level units and what isn't.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

On a side note, as the Scout is a SP-only unit, I also wish it could help add a little more variety to the faction instead of being essentially a Thunderer alternative.

Well, Poachers are also Thunderer's alternative, and they are generally better, the only real advantage mysterious dwarves have over hunters is their speed and defense on hills and mountains. But Scouts have a different ranged damage type, something every other faction has. Granted, they have that advantage only on level 1, on level 2 more dedicated ranged units outmatch them in their main stat, and Rogues and Lords get their slashing ranged attack as they hit the required level, but it's not that likely to get that much level ups so that Scouts become obsolete, they can prey on them all, as they don't specialize in the either combat distance.

[gnombat]

I believe it's simply because the Dwarvish Scout was added to mainline recently (relatively speaking - it was more than 10 years ago now) and after the multiplayer factions were already well-established.

That's stange. They fit the Knalgan Alliance more than Thieves, the backstab is neat but they don't have skirmisher to capitalize on that until they level up, not that it's hard for them to do, and Footpads are generally better in most of the situations. Thieves are inherently cityfolk, but dwarven cities are completely different beasts. And why do all factions have to limit themselves to 8 unit types, if they aren't all seen on recruit UI anyway?

Well, again, the Dwarvish Scout simply didn't exist at the time the Knalgan Alliance recruit list was created. The Knalgan Alliance roster was already established by Wesnoth 1.0, but the Dwarvish Scout was not added until Wesnoth 1.8.

Possibly if the Dwarvish Scout (and perhaps the Dwarvish Runesmith) had been around before Wesnoth 1.0, the developers might have considered creating a dwarf-only multiplayer faction, but at the time the dwarves had only a small number of units.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

Well, again, the Dwarvish Scout simply didn't exist at the time the Knalgan Alliance recruit list was created. The Knalgan Alliance roster was already established by Wesnoth 1.0, but the Dwarvish Scout was not added until Wesnoth 1.8.

Possibly if the Dwarvish Scout (and perhaps the Dwarvish Runesmith) had been around before Wesnoth 1.0, the developers might have considered creating a dwarf-only multiplayer faction, but at the time the dwarves had only a small number of units.

I'm not sure all the factions are the same as they were in 1.0., and I don't think adding a unit or few that was in mainline for more than five stable releases will cause an outrage or break the balance. I don't make these decisions and I can understand if whose who do don't listen to me, if their reasoning is sound, but that's all I can do in this situation, make a suggestion and explain why it makes sense in my opinion.

[Mirion147]

All fencers are given medallions which protect from the cold. It's standard issue

[Roge_Tebnelok]

All fencers are given medallions which protect from the cold. It's standard issue

It's their fencing tournament trophies.

[Mirion147]

Or just because they're already so cool

[gnombat]

I'm not sure all the factions are the same as they were in 1.0

I don't think there have been any units added to the multiplayer factions since version 1.0 (other than some additional level 3 advancements).

and I don't think adding a unit or few that was in mainline for more than five stable releases will cause an outrage or break the balance.

Well, sure, adding a unit to a multiplayer faction is something that could be done, but it's not something which would be done lightly. Obviously it would raise a lot of questions. Does adding this unit affect balance? Would it make the faction too strong? Would it be necessary to remove a unit from the faction to compensate, and if so, which one? (Would that affect balance, making the faction too weak?) Etc.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

Well, sure, adding a unit to a multiplayer faction is something that could be done, but it's not something which would be done lightly. Obviously it would raise a lot of questions. Does adding this unit affect balance? Would it make the faction too strong? Would it be necessary to remove a unit from the faction to compensate, and if so, which one? (Would that affect balance, making the faction too weak?) Etc.

Of course. If only we weren't the only ones thinking about it now and ready to voice their opinion...