The need for a Balance Team

[ForestDragon]

That would be problematic since it will be just as disruptive to UMC as going from 1.16 to 1.18 was.

1.18 has been the status quo for one stable update. older balance approach has been the status quo for over a decade. Most ported older add-ons (and that is a pretty much the majority of UMC at the moment) have been designed/balanced with the old status quo in mind unless the designer intentionally rebalanced around 1.18 changes.

An even in 1.18 I have personally seen multiple prominent modders (like the creator of Era of Magic, creators of the Great Steppe Era, creator of Vendraxis Prophecy/Saurian pack etc.) manually editing the resistances of their custom smallfoot/undead/etc. units to use 1.16-like values instead of adopting the 1.18 style, or other adjustments that would not be necessary in the previous status quo.

What many people are upset about is drastic changes to classic units who had their current stats for over a decade - tweaking the gold price or hp/xp numbers by a bit is one thing, but completely redesigning how one of the main 6 damage types works (arcane), or nearly doubling the damage of a unit (shyde's thorns) is another

Additionally, I believe it's incorrect to talk about 1.18 as if it was meant to be a stopping point and things would have calmed down after it. 1.18 was a new direction, but by no means an endpoint. As the 1.20 balance thread shows, there were plans to keep moving further in that direction with new stable versions.
viewtopic.php?t=58621

I believe that a large-scale revert (can be partial not even full) would be far less destructive to UMC than the precedent that 1.18 sets of what is and is not acceptable for the game's balance, and I agree with SkyEnd's ideas outlined on the previous page.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think most would be happy to rebalance back to values closer to 1.16 once if it means they can trust stats to stay mostly stable again, rather than having to rebalance their content after every major update from now on.

[DuncanDill]

I agree with FD here, I often just revert back to 1.16 while I am making campaigns, as those stats just feel better...

[Tezereth]

Given how many UMC are balanced over pre-1.16 stats (especially 1.10-1.16), a revert really wouldn't be nearly as destructive than what the previous transition from 1.16 to 1.18 did. Even among the peoples that did adapt their UMC, if their previous versions still exist, the transition back to older stats philosophy wouldn't be all that problematic.
Furthermore, choosing to stay with 1.18's controversial philosophy is opening the gates of pandora's box for more troubles, the more extreme things manage to make it in mainline in the long term, no matter how controversial they are, the more extreme decisions are likely to be taken in the future, creating further more problems for everyone.

[Mirion147]

What many people are upset about is drastic changes to classic units who had their current stats for over a decade - tweaking the gold price or hp/xp numbers by a bit is one thing, but completely redesigning how one of the main 6 damage types works (arcane), or nearly doubling the damage of a unit (shyde's thorns) is another

I believe that a large-scale revert (can be partial not even full) would be far less destructive to UMC than the precedent that 1.18 sets of what is and is not acceptable for the game's balance, and I agree with SkyEnd's ideas outlined on the previous page.

That's not what had me upset about 1.18. I was upset because the shift wasn't across the board. If you're going to shift that drastically, it needs to be done across all factions, which I would've supported. Moving backwards is exactly that. We can keep everything the same and keep our low number of active nostalgia players happy while forcing our players looking for alterations and shifts to be stuck in the same gameplay loop and we might as well just get rid of the idea of a balance team. We can shift everything to 1.16 and then leave it at that. Or, we can actually develop the game, move forward, attract players who enjoy a mixup, bring old players back to receive a different experience this time around, and still have the option for having the old stats like you mentioned some do, or the old versions if you so desire.

What you're suggesting makes a balance team pointless, so how can you approve of a balance team if you don't actually want balance changes? Change everything to 1.16, take 3 days to balance the new units (no balance team required for that, just make your PRs and we'll call it a day), and then we're done.

It is much better to progress and develop as a game and as creators. Obviously we shouldn't be trying to break everything with every patch, but this is a consistently updating game in that it is consistently making updates. New stable cycle releases (1.16>1.18) imo should be permitted to include differences that may require some work from umc authors. There's nothing wrong with that. Why should we act like it's dead without an active team where the game remains the same? How about we, as umc authors, simply appreciate that we are still getting updates, with new tools, new graphics, new units, and new stats, bringing in new players? I think it's ridiculous of us to accept that this game was built and has been developed to this point, but because now we've put our own work into it, it needs to stop developing because otherwise we would need to actually develop our stuff too. That's lazy selfish thinking imo. If the devs want to switch things up, we can tell them why we think it's a bad idea, we can switch it back to the other way ourselves, but to say "no, you can't switch that up because I don't like that and I'm too lazy to switch it back myself or to develop my umc around that change" that's petty, presumptuous and arrogant imo.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

What many people are upset about is drastic changes to classic units who had their current stats for over a decade - tweaking the gold price or hp/xp numbers by a bit is one thing, but completely redesigning how one of the main 6 damage types works (arcane), or nearly doubling the damage of a unit (shyde's thorns) is another

I believe that a large-scale revert (can be partial not even full) would be far less destructive to UMC than the precedent that 1.18 sets of what is and is not acceptable for the game's balance, and I agree with SkyEnd's ideas outlined on the previous page.

That's not what had me upset about 1.18. I was upset because the shift wasn't across the board. If you're going to shift that drastically, it needs to be done across all factions, which I would've supported. Moving backwards is exactly that.

If every faction was changed as elves were that would arguably make things even worse, for it would have been harder to make them compensate for each other, basically building the balance anew and fix it's issues without changing again. Wasn't arcane rework a shift across the board?

We can keep everything the same and keep our low number of active nostalgia players happy while forcing our players looking for alterations and shifts to be stuck in the same gameplay loop and we might as well just get rid of the idea of a balance team.

It's been less than a year since 1.18 came out, and I highly doubt that it attracted more players than all previous versions combined. And why do you think the changes players want have to follow a vision of a single person? Veterans who want something new mostly play UMC or make it themselves, it exists exactly for them and what mainline can offer is generally more limited than what UMC can.

We can shift everything to 1.16 and then leave it at that. Or, we can actually develop the game, move forward, attract players who enjoy a mixup, bring old players back to receive a different experience this time around, and still have the option for having the old stats like you mentioned some do, or the old versions if you so desire.

Not everything is going to be reverted, and development is a complex process that has its pitfalls, so mistakes can happen, but as long as some changes remain between versions and are those specific changes have wide support and not much controversy, the game is moving forward. Also, one can get fed up with the new stuff as easily as with the old, and such players may want to go back to basics and relax a bit from complexity, that's another reason mainline exists.

[Dalas120]

Generally speaking, I believe that balance or stat changes are unlikely to excite new players or re-attract old ones. In my experience (from both Wesnoth and other game communities), only the most committed part of the playerbase cares about things like arcane damage or the XP on the poacher.

I feel that major changes/improvements to SP campaigns are more likely to interest new/retired players, as storylines tend to be far more memorable than individual units' stats.

With regards to low-level default-era unit stats, I believe numbers should be built around what's best for default 1v1 (probably 1.16, by the sound of it) with lore setting boundaries on what is or is not acceptable.

With regards to high-level units or non-default stats, I believe we should strive for a trifecta of maintaining/enhancing lore, encouraging recall list variety, and limiting content-breaking changes. I do think there are a number of problems that could be resolved, mostly to do with some factions having limited strategic variety or some promotions being drastically more powerful than others.

In my experience, changes have to be fairly massive to break SP/UMC content - but we did have a couple massive changes in 1.18. +75% damage on the Shyde was a massive change, as was reworking all arcane resistances. +4hp on the Avenger, on the other hand, is effectively irrelevant for SP/UMC.

[gnombat]

Or, we can actually develop the game, move forward, attract players who enjoy a mixup, bring old players back to receive a different experience this time around

To me, none of that really sounds like "balancing". It sounds like making substantial changes to the game.

If you want to make major changes to the gameplay, I would think the best way to do it would be to create an add-on era which contains those changes. Anyone can just go ahead and do that (no need for a balance team to be involved with that). If it turns out that it's wildly popular, then it might some day be considered for incorporation into mainline Wesnoth.

What you're suggesting makes a balance team pointless, so how can you approve of a balance team if you don't actually want balance changes?

I don't think I've seen anyone who is actually opposed to making changes which are genuinely intended for balancing purposes. (That seems to me the sort of thing a balance team might be useful for.) What people are objecting to is radical changes to the gameplay which are proposed under the guise of "balance". These seem like a bad idea for several reasons:

1. When someone proposes enormous alterations to the game and calls them "balance" changes, it seems to me a very misleading way of labeling a proposed change. At best it seems a poor choice of terms which will simply confuse people. At worst it seems like a sneaky way to try to get radical changes accepted by portraying them as something they are not.
2. If major changes are being proposed to the gameplay, why should these simply be added to the mainline with no prior testing whatsoever? Wesnoth has an extensive add-on system which is designed exactly for this. Again, as I noted above, if you want to make extensive changes, create an add-on for them, and see how it goes.
3. Even if you think major changes to the game are needed, I don't think a "balance" team should really be trying to make those. That sounds like design by committee, which never works well. If you or anyone else has an idea for big changes which you'd like to see in the game, just go ahead and do it in an add-on. Again, if the changes turn out to be wildly popular, it's possible that they might eventually be incorporated into the mainline; at that point, having a balance team might be useful for tweaking statistics, etc.

[Tezereth]

I completely agree with what Gnombat said, it is mostly what I was planning to say but much better.

Or, we can actually develop the game, move forward, attract players who enjoy a mixup, bring old players back to receive a different experience this time around

New players do not know about old stats, only the ones of the version they start playing. Changing stats is entirely irrelevant of whether or not new players are attracted to the game. Furthermore, if what you were saying is true, then where are all the new players in 1.18? As for old players, I don't think a lot return specifically for unit changes. It is more likely that they end up neutral on the stats rather than liking them, or they might completely disagree with changes and be driven away from touching the game again.

how can you approve of a balance team if you don't actually want balance changes

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what a balance team does. A balance team makes the game more fair and, obviously, balanced. A balance team isn't supposed to make the game "different" just for the sake of it, especially if that involves making the game unbalanced.

[Pentarctagon]

1.18 has been the status quo for one stable update. older balance approach has been the status quo for over a decade. Most ported older add-ons (and that is a pretty much the majority of UMC at the moment) have been designed/balanced with the old status quo in mind unless the designer intentionally rebalanced around 1.18 changes.

That would be something that's good to know then: how many add-ons needed significant changes at all, how many needed significant changes and made those changes, and how many imported a copy of 1.16's units instead?

[Skyend]

Who needs stats for something that obvious.
Same with Kalifat, they are out there for ages but almost nobody likes Dune, since they have no identity.
Can you prove me wrong on the 2nd and explain why they're or should be added to default instead of getting removed?

[Mirion147]

I'm glad you very loud people have your very loud opinions. I have no desire to debate any more. I've made my points countless times. You simply feel differently then me. The difference is that my opinions don't exclude yours, but yours exclude mine. I will bend the knee to whatever is decided by those in charge.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

What you're suggesting makes a balance team pointless, so how can you approve of a balance team if you don't actually want balance changes? Change everything to 1.16, take 3 days to balance the new units (no balance team required for that, just make your PRs and we'll call it a day), and then we're done.

Who said that players who don't want 1.18 changes don't want any? A balance team made of candidates with different specialities of the same field in similar ratio would help ensure that stats aren't controversial and don't cause issues in any part of the game better than two developers who are working on vastly different things.

It is much better to progress and develop as a game and as creators. Obviously we shouldn't be trying to break everything with every patch, but this is a consistently updating game in that it is consistently making updates. New stable cycle releases (1.16>1.18) imo should be permitted to include differences that may require some work from umc authors. There's nothing wrong with that. Why should we act like it's dead without an active team where the game remains the same?

That's exactly the reason why 1.18 changes are controversial, they require developers, both mainline and UMC, to make more work than they should than porting their content to the next version. It's better to develop a game that is made and played by a community, whose members converse with each other, in collaboration with said community, to be able to reach a compromise that suits everyone participating more than a change that some like but some don't, otherwise whose who don't like these specific changes would either go to UMC or out of the game entirely, but they won't play something they don't like, and if the said changes aren't used as often as they are supposed to because less people plays with them, the work put in thinking and implementing these changes becomes pointless and, in case of mainline, potentially dangerous for the game. That's why the core has to be stable and uncontroversial and changes to it should be approached very carefully and from different perspectives that one person just can't provide.

How about we, as umc authors, simply appreciate that we are still getting updates, with new tools, new graphics, new units, and new stats, bringing in new players? I think it's ridiculous of us to accept that this game was built and has been developed to this point, but because now we've put our own work into it, it needs to stop developing because otherwise we would need to actually develop our stuff too. That's lazy selfish thinking imo.

We do appreciate it when we get something new or better to use, both as UMC authors and players, but not when something becomes worse or is taken from us. And unlike mainline, which is now in the poor condition, because old campaigns aren't yet balanced around 1.18 stats and multiplayer suffers from radical changes which were posed as biased towards MP but created more new issues that closed old ones, modders don't have to change their content if it's playable regardless of version, no matter if it uses parts of mainline or not, but if they don't their content could suffer from mainline problems as well and that would make player experience worse. Thinking that noone adapts their content to the curent state of things and instead trying to go against status quo, on the other hand, is lazy and selfish.

If the devs want to switch things up, we can tell them why we think it's a bad idea, we can switch it back to the other way ourselves, but to say "no, you can't switch that up because I don't like that and I'm too lazy to switch it back myself or to develop my umc around that change" that's petty, presumptuous and arrogant imo.

Most devs were and some even are the players who want(ed) to improve the core, that places a great responsibility on them, but their authority comes from the lack of volunteers to make this work and wide community's support which can be lost if their vision doesn't correlate with community's and changes they bring are controversial or cause issues. One can't just become a dev and do whatever they want if it contradicts what community wants them them to do and they don't want to lose their position. Implying otherwise goes against the ideals of open-source. Why should we adapt to changes that are unpopular within the community and why should we let these unpopular changes come to life in the first place when we can prevent that and save everyone the trouble of playing with them or modding around or out of them now when we have these volunteers, most of whom are supported by the community for their experience and there's no reason why they can't become a part of the balance team that's desperately needed?

I agree with gnombat, that he said was brought up at the beginning of this over a month long discussion and it's good to be reminded here.

[Mirion147]

I will note that gnombat and most of this conversation has severely missed my actual point throughout any debate regarding meta shift of new content. You can look through the github issues to see my points. Just thought it worth mentioning since everyone is agreeing with him. I'm not pushing for meta shift (which is what I've always called it), though I'm not against it. The only reason I bring it up is because that's what 1.18 failed to do. All I want is to be able to make units do what they should do, and not be shoehorned by 5 stats. I don't think balance should be based on "feeling" and I don't think that a unit should be restricted to a normal unit feel. If a unit is set to by 8-5 then let it be 8-5. As long as it's balanced accordingly then let it happen. If a unit needs absorb/guard, then let it get absorb guard. If it needs an ability that doesn't exist yet, make the ability. This is my primary goal.

Having meta shift is cool and I think will bring a lot to this game. But at the end of the day, as long as every unit isn't just a cookie cutter archer with damage raised and strikes reduced, or this one doesn't have damage or strikes but it's cheap, then I'll be happy. Also, just because I know someone is going to say "we can't give all this special abilities!" Obviously. I'm talking about units that don't fit their theme with the current stats limitations. Warmaster, heavy infantryman, necromancer, avenger, outrider, great mage. These units and others could use some flair and spice to really let them sink into their role and theme. Instead everyone wants to stay in the past, nothing changed, nothing added (yes, sigh, I know you've said new units are okay, I mean no identities changed or no new abilities added to give depth to what their identity is) instead we have units that flounder in their identity that we can't just change their identity to fit their actual role.

And here I am debating again. Yea, I'll stop here.

[gnombat]

I'm glad you very loud people have your very loud opinions. I have no desire to debate any more. I've made my points countless times. You simply feel differently then me. The difference is that my opinions don't exclude yours, but yours exclude mine.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I'm not trying to "exclude" anyone. I mentioned (three times) that you can create an add-on if you have an idea for changes you'd like to see in the game. I wasn't being sarcastic (if that's how it came across) - that's simply the usual way changes get made. Since Wesnoth 1.0 was released, probably 90% of changes to the mainline - new campaigns, revised versions of existing campaigns, new factions (the Khalifate/Dunefolk), multiplayer maps, etc. - have started out as add-ons. I think that's generally worked pretty well. I think most issues have arisen from the 10% of changes which didn't come from an add-on.

Yes, I do have my own opinions on these things, and these opinions tend to lean towards avoiding radical changes... but if someone creates an add-on era, and everyone is playing that add-on, and everyone says that this era is great and it's much more well-balanced and exciting than the existing mainline factions, then I might have to revise my opinion...

[Mirion147]

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I'm not trying to "exclude" anyone.

It was not, I've had many very similar conversations with many of the others in this thread. I'm sorry if it implied like I was coming across hostile towards you. My only point irt your post was that I am not pushing for meta shifting and that if meta shifting was going to happen, it would be meta shifting, not balancing, though to be done right would need it's own balance therein.