Balance changes for 1.18

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

User avatar
Hejnewar
Posts: 239
Joined: September 17th, 2016, 11:01 am

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Hejnewar »

Krogen wrote: April 21st, 2023, 10:37 pm
Spoiler:
IPS wrote: April 19th, 2023, 5:08 pm
Spoiler:
Spannerbag wrote: April 19th, 2023, 4:40 pm Personally, as a mostly campaign player, I quite like large cost/xp/power differentials between various unit types
Yeah I like them as well but quiet large power difference is needed for it to actually appear and levels tied with upkeep are limiting in itself.
gnombat wrote: April 21st, 2023, 12:26 am 1. It's not really clear what the goal of all these changes is exactly. In particular I'm not sure what all the XP changes are intended to accomplish. For example, looking at the Rebels faction, it looks like there's essentially an XP reduction across the entire faction:

2. The changes in the other factions, too, seem to be primarily XP reductions (although there are some exceptions - there are a few units which have had their XP increased). I'm not sure what the purpose of this is - it doesn't really seem like a balance change exactly.
1. Honestly the main target would be single scenario survival scenarios / standard mp.
2. Im not using units as a reference point, Im using logic as a reference point, xps are so random a lot of the time that it is not worth using it as reference point.
Lord-Knightmare wrote: April 19th, 2023, 4:21 pm 1.Thus, if these changes affect SP mainline campaigns, I think they should be rebalanced to restore the same difficulty level. I do not mean significant change like re-design or what not. Just basic usual gold/income/turn tweaks or just incrementing the experience_modifier for that campaign. Neglect is not a good Dev behaviour. Consider all mainline campaigns equally. All Mainline campaigns matter.

2.One thing I might suggest is that allow [era] to have a experience_modifier key which force sets the XP modifier to what value the era author/maintainer has decided to state. Might be the solution you all wanted. Like Default Era changes the core units when it's played, and the campaign part is left alone.
1. Yeah that would be best but I neither can do that particularly well nor do I have that much time to do that so that wouldnt be that good solution for me.
2. How do you combine that with scenario exp mod?
name wrote: April 21st, 2023, 9:46 pm The Cavalryman change is the only one that bugs me for the "thematic" reason
Tbh for me it was always the reverse, wondering why they dont have the same resistances.
MisterEcho wrote: April 17th, 2023, 6:29 pm Take into consideration that your changes offers are outrageous and would highly disbalance Wesnoth. :| :hmm:
You can always play Ladder Era. Also next time at least read all the changes before you complain cuz you clearly missed the most outrageous ones. But what does the changes even matter if the only factor for you is luck. :P
User avatar
Lord-Knightmare
Discord Moderator
Posts: 2337
Joined: May 24th, 2010, 5:26 pm
Location: Somewhere in the depths of Irdya, gathering my army to eventually destroy the known world.
Contact:

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Lord-Knightmare »

1. Yeah that would be best but I neither can do that particularly well nor do I have that much time to do that so that wouldnt be that good solution for me.
As I recall, you are the Project Member responsible for MP Development of the game. You handle MP scenario refinement, new MP addition, effective optimization of units for MP play (Coop/FFA/PvP).
SP campaign re-balance is not your responsibility.
Thus, it should be done by the Project Member responsible for SP content.
2. How do you combine that with scenario exp mod?
The [era]experience_modifier= should be overriding the one set by the scenario but then we are now introduced to the next obstacle which experience modifier value set for survival scenarios. Clearly, they should not be overridden. Thus, I think it should have some way to check for a force_lock_settings parameter value. Anyways, I think this is best left to the Lua/Engine devs to figure out.

Rather, I have this clean modification that modifies the default experience modifier within a scenario on game start. So that might be a solution as well. The mod can set the modifier value to increment/decrement based on a given value.
Creator of "War of Legends"
Creator of the Isle of Mists survival scenario.
Maintainer of Forward They Cried
User:Knyghtmare | My Medium
Dalas120
Developer
Posts: 33
Joined: July 5th, 2020, 6:51 pm

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Dalas120 »

My opinion - it seems odd to have a base XP value, but then to adjust that for both multiplayer (70%) and singleplayer (as proposed).

Why not pick either SP or MP to always use 100% XP, and then adjust the %XP of the other mode until both are in balance?

(also thematically I quite like ladder era's bladed footpads)
User avatar
Hejnewar
Posts: 239
Joined: September 17th, 2016, 11:01 am

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Hejnewar »

Lord-Knightmare wrote: April 22nd, 2023, 3:54 am SP campaign re-balance is not your responsibility.
I wonder if others think the same.
XP
Exp mod is not the best solution anyway, if I do a blanket increas of XPs then some campaigns will end up harder so that is far from perfect solution.
name wrote: April 21st, 2023, 9:46 pm Overall these look like nice improvements. I hope the changes you proposed in your youtube videos are still happening too (perhaps in early 1.19 ?)
I forgot about this, but some of them are likely still.
User avatar
Jarom
Posts: 110
Joined: January 4th, 2015, 8:23 pm
Location: Green Isle, Irdya or Poland, Earth - I'm not quite sure

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Jarom »

As a SP/co-op MP player, I can offer the following insight:
Lowering exp favours player. Lowering L2 unit costs favor AI, except in rare cases where you can recruit them, but also results in slightly more exp for skilled player. L3 costs only matter in few campaigns like THoT, Httt, and honestly lot of L3 units were undervalued, but you can just give enemy more gold in those scenarios that make use of them.

Lowering exp requirement of healers and strong mages by a lot is the only change that really matters. Faster maxing up healers (Mage of Light, Shyde) and quickly getting lawnmovers like Archmage/Sylph makes some campaigns much easier, which may break the fun on intermediate, but finally allow to max your units on easy.
Also lowering lvl 2 UD units costs is going to make things more interesting... but only where sorceress/mage is not involved.

The moment those changes come out the following campaigns are instantly broken in terms of balance:
DM, EI - Mage of Light & Archmage & Paladin/Iron Mauler vs UD - nothing more to say
Httt - with exp sinks like archmages and enchantresses out of the way, you're gonna have most of your army levelled up by the half of this campaign on intermediate. Where's the fun during the rest, except when vs knight army which just got nerfed with higher costs?
Also you might want to check out AOI (shammy spam is still difficult, but just got buffed, and you might get some archmages by last scenario)

You simply underestimate how much exp in a normal campaign Archmage gets as an unit that can kill a lot of L2/L3s in one attack. In Httt and old THoT they sometimes got AMLA as Grand Mages without even trying, because they killed enemies without any help too often. But other than reverting Mage/Elvish Sorceress lines exp back to previous values (or only slightly lower), the rest doesn't matter for campaign balance, because those small changes mostly cancel each other out. Gold carryover generally makes it pretty hard to estimate player power, and with longer campaigns your units would soon be mostly max lvl. If anything, those changes make World Conquest easier, which is a welcome change, because it's currently too hard in multiplayer even on easiest difficulties.
User avatar
Spannerbag
Posts: 491
Joined: December 18th, 2016, 6:14 pm
Location: Yes

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Spannerbag »

Hejnewar wrote: April 21st, 2023, 11:26 pm ...
Spannerbag wrote: April 19th, 2023, 4:40 pm Personally, as a mostly campaign player, I quite like large cost/xp/power differentials between various unit types
Yeah I like them as well but quiet large power difference is needed for it to actually appear and levels tied with upkeep are limiting in itself.
...
Sorry to be dim but I'm not quite sure what you mean, could you please clarify for my little brain please? :)

Also, the parameters/requirements for a well-balanced MP faction are, IMHO, somewhat different to those for the SP version of the same.
E.g. as I understand it, in MP those units requiring more xp to advance and/or are more expensive tend to struggle to levelup more than they would in SP.
It seems a pity that the underlying unittypes are (have to be?) the same for MP and SP (yes I know there are many ways to change unit attributes via extras and add-ons) because changes made to units for very good reasons for MP (or SP) may not benefit SP (or MP)...

In my case I've spent ages gameplaying a campaign (about 85% done) that involves mages.
I fear I'll have to rebalance it again when these new unittypes are implemented (or maybe create my own versions of certain units) otherwise it'll be too easy with the lower mage line xp thresholds.
I'm sure the same will apply to some mainline campaigns as well.

That said, I appeciate the time and effort you put in to the game.

Cheers!
-- Spannerbag
SP Campaigns: After EI (v1.14) Leafsea Burning (v1.17, v1.16)
I suspect the universe is simpler than we think and stranger than we can know.
Also, I fear that beyond a certain point more intelligence does not necessarily benefit a species...
LienRag
Posts: 127
Joined: September 24th, 2018, 4:03 pm

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by LienRag »

Hejnewar wrote: April 21st, 2023, 11:26 pm Here I went all the way and it actually compensates fully for the missing power so technically poacher now should be at the level of other main units and do on average as well as they do.
I'm certainly not an experienced multi-player nor a really good player, but that seems the wrong logic there.
Making all units have similar levels is not the way to have their singularities shine nor to make the game more tactically varied.


Hejnewar wrote: April 21st, 2023, 11:26 pm
gnombat wrote: April 21st, 2023, 12:26 am 1. It's not really clear what the goal of all these changes is exactly. In particular I'm not sure what all the XP changes are intended to accomplish.
1. Honestly the main target would be single scenario survival scenarios / standard mp.
Then why not use a "ladder2 era" for these changes and leave the main era units alone ?
User avatar
Hejnewar
Posts: 239
Joined: September 17th, 2016, 11:01 am

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Hejnewar »

You simply underestimate how much exp in a normal campaign Archmage gets as an unit that can kill a lot of L2/L3s in one attack. In Httt and old THoT they sometimes got AMLA as Grand Mages without even trying, because they killed enemies without any help too often. But other than reverting Mage/Elvish Sorceress lines exp back to previous values (or only slightly lower), the rest doesn't matter for campaign balance, because those small changes mostly cancel each other out. Gold carryover generally makes it pretty hard to estimate player power, and with longer campaigns your units would soon be mostly max lvl. If anything, those changes make World Conquest easier, which is a welcome change, because it's currently too hard in multiplayer even on easiest difficulties.
This is probably the most important point for me to discuss, it is not that I underestimate it, Im simply not looking at it, what is my primary reason for these changes is making these units viable to play with in places other than the campaigns where the most important thing in the end is gold and spending it as efficently as possible so you can afford to spend a lot of xp in order to bring slightly better recalls in the next scenario. FTR it is still better to level Red -> Arch, than Arch -> Great.

In addition it kinda made me look into WC more, I was curious where faction like rebels (which pretty much only got buffs) stands currently in opinions of players, turns out, they are preety much one of the worst factions (mostly in mid - late game, fine in early). This maybe is not very surprising but in it nice confirmation of my goal.
Sorry to be dim but I'm not quite sure what you mean, could you please clarify for my little brain please? :)
There are two price tags on every unit, one is gold the other is upkeep, if you buy a unit that is stronger than average, you have to pay tax for it in form of gold (or strength per gold) because if you only buy units like that, you will in total pay less upkeep than you enemy spaming grunts, on the other hand units that are weaker than average then you would in turn pay way more upkeep and thus units like that have higher strength per gold.

So if you make a really powerful unit at level 2, it would quickly end up paying tons of gold in stronger-than-average-level-2-unit-tax which would in turn make it not really viable outside of recalling and leveling into it. (Wait maybe units should also pay xp tax for that? It actually wouldnt really matter much for anyone outside of the really outrageus examples anyway.)
Making all units have similar levels is not the way to have their singularities shine nor to make the game more tactically varied.
How is making units that are weak more viable for play bad for the game?
Then why not use a "ladder2 era" for these changes and leave the main era units alone ?
Then maybe I will hear some arguments why the changes are bad in your opinion for the game? So far people seem to mostly appreciate them.

My opinion:
In standard 1v1 / XvX MP the level ups are something very trully special, you dont see them a lot, it is great if you get them. In single scenarios on average, level ups are valued and some of the level ups are still rare and not seen a lot, mostly form levels 3 and 4. In campaigns the levels 3 and 4 are what you are generally using after 3 scenarios anyway, I know that what I will say is in complete opposite with the changes, but in campaigns there is no real scarsity or units that make you feel proud that you managed to get them. I think this is a problem, and since Im ruining a balance of them anyway, it might be a good time to tackle that issue.
User avatar
nemaara
Developer
Posts: 333
Joined: May 31st, 2015, 2:13 am

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by nemaara »

So from the SP side, here's my thoughts.

Drakes: good changes
Saurians: I don't think changing ambusher to have 3 ranged strikes or stronger ranged is good because it's a melee class unit so I don't think we should change the class to be more mixed fighter. Plus, we probably will be adding ranged saurian archer units in the not too distant future (plus UMC currently has some) so I would much rather the HP go up or something else to buff it.

Knalga: great, I think we will finally get some more unit diversity in campaigns instead of lord spam

Northerner: fine, do you think Slurbow can use slight buff too? Crossbowman might not need buffed melee?

UD: skelly and ghoul line buffs are good. I really don't think wraith needs exp buff, it's a really strong unit already and earlier spectres makes campaigns even easier. Shadow buff relative to wraith is good, I think shadows tend to be somewhat overlooked as far as I can tell. Also can we consider not buffing ghoul line dmg but increasing tankiness instead? I think that fits more with their theme, but what do you think?

Loy and DF: for campaigns these changes are very hazardous for current campaigns. Getting earlier lvl 3 makes things much easier for the player and can let you steamroll starting from S3-4 when you can just mass lvl 3s and mass recall to smash the campaign (most current mainline campaigns). I do really like shift away from swordsman focus in loy, now we will finally be encouraged to not mass royal guard in campaigns as unit of choice. On the other hand, mage lines become really strong with these changes and overall it will likely make loy campaigns much easier.

On the other hand, I thought about it a bit and realized that this will also encourage designers to make campaigns shorter and put more thought into scenario design so it's not cookie cutter exp farm so I think that may be good thing in the long run. I would like to hear others' thoughts on that.

Mermen: great, I think they are underpowered compared to other units, so buff is good
Rebels: same as above for loy, but I have slightly different reasoning here. Lore-wise, I would tend to say elves should be lower amount of units but stronger per unit. So if rebels needs buff, I would say can we consider making the faction have higher exp (or maintain current exp) but buff the level 3 units a slight bit to be stronger (either more hp, more dmg, or some small other buff). What do you think?

Basically loy and rebels are problematic for SP campaigns. Northerners only has SotBE which already has exp issues so that needs to be corrected with campaign design. Rest maybe need some tweaks but good power shifting away from current units that are too powerful.

Edit: other idea is to increase all exp for base units but reduce MP multiplier to 60 or 50% as needed. Basically SP benefits from units having higher exp. I'd like to hear opinions on this option too.
User avatar
Hejnewar
Posts: 239
Joined: September 17th, 2016, 11:01 am

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Hejnewar »

Since I dont have time I will leave the stat changes for latter.
On the other hand, mage lines become really strong with these changes and overall it will likely make loy campaigns much easier.
Honestly I want to see this, because if you focus a lot on mages, then they kinda die without support or you are forced to recruit units which is waste of gold.
Edit: other idea is to increase all exp for base units but reduce MP multiplier to 60 or 50% as needed. Basically SP benefits from units having higher exp. I'd like to hear opinions on this option too.
I would go straight into 200% for Sp and 35% for mp 1v1s. :sip:
User avatar
Yomar
Posts: 392
Joined: October 27th, 2011, 5:14 am
Contact:

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Yomar »

Many lvl 2 changes are nice, even if I don't agree with all of them, some xp and cost changes are a bit too harsh imho.
I agree with IPS, Cav. was already nerfed a lot, even now, I rarely manage to level them up in MP compared to the other scout units in the game.
If the changes stay, maybe he should have back 1 or 2 hp so he will still remain a good counter against impact resistant units and he would have a little bit higher chances to survive to pierce units, wich usually he gets shredded from.
Also he doesn't have any terrain defence to count on, as the other scout units have for hoping to survive.
With less res. and more xp requirements, It will be even harder to level them.
Also impact on the game of lv 1 units are bigger than the changes made on lvl2 units.
Last edited by Yomar on April 25th, 2023, 2:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Beholded Wesnoth's Origins.
Max G on WIF
Rank 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
name
Posts: 564
Joined: January 6th, 2008, 3:32 am

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by name »

nemaara wrote: April 23rd, 2023, 11:14 pm Saurians: I don't think changing ambusher to have 3 ranged strikes or stronger ranged is good because it's a melee class unit so I don't think we should change the class to be more mixed fighter. Plus, we probably will be adding ranged saurian archer units in the not too distant future
The thing is though, those saurian archer concepts all branch (far) off the saurian skirmisher (like the ambusher) while dropping the skirmisher ability itself. None of them offers a decent ranged attack + skirmisher ability. Leaving that role open for the ambusher to fill.

They would also seem a little less far out as branches of the skirmisher line if the ambusher was a mixed fighter. You could even have just one archer unit as a level 3 advancement from Hejnewar's mixed fighter ambusher. Thus only creating a need for one new high quality sprite rather than two.
nemaara wrote: April 23rd, 2023, 11:14 pm On the other hand, I thought about it a bit and realized that this will also encourage designers to make campaigns shorter and put more thought into scenario design so it's not cookie cutter exp farm so I think that may be good thing in the long run. I would like to hear others' thoughts on that.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. We have drifted too far in the direction of having overly long campaigns with a story thinly spread over about 20 scenarios, usually half of which are filler scenarios for grinding experience. Because otherwise players might feel let down they did not get that overpriced level 4 glass cannon spell caster unit. And players will naturally feel the need to save scum every time said trophy unit dies.

What I would so much rather see are more campaigns of 3-9 highly creative, polished, memorable scenarios. Quality over quantity. And also for the effect of gold and experience carryover to be reduced such that a scenario does not become too easy (or too hard) based on how many veteran units the player may have tucked away.
nemaara wrote: April 23rd, 2023, 11:14 pm Basically SP benefits from units having higher exp. I'd like to hear opinions on this option too.
For the reasons detailed above, I have to disagree here. Hoarding experience/veterans over multiple scenarios is more addictive than it is fun. Especially since it robs us of more balanced and clever individual scenarios.
Hejnewar wrote: April 23rd, 2023, 11:31 pm
On the other hand, mage lines become really strong with these changes and overall it will likely make loy campaigns much easier.
Honestly I want to see this, because if you focus a lot on mages, then they kinda die without support or you are forced to recruit units which is waste of gold.
I agree with this; I suspect the glass cannon level 4 spell casters are not going to imbalance campaigns just because their experience cost is lowered to match their utility. They are support units after all.
Hejnewar wrote: April 21st, 2023, 11:26 pm
name wrote: April 21st, 2023, 9:46 pm The Cavalryman change is the only one that bugs me for the "thematic" reason
Tbh for me it was always the reverse, wondering why they dont have the same resistances.
Because the Cavalryman carries a shield, wears full plate armor and his horse is partly plate clad, whereas the Horseman has no shield, wears partial plate and his horse is unarmored.
Dalas120
Developer
Posts: 33
Joined: July 5th, 2020, 6:51 pm

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Dalas120 »

nemaara wrote: April 23rd, 2023, 11:14 pm On the other hand, I thought about it a bit and realized that this will also encourage designers to make campaigns shorter and put more thought into scenario design so it's not cookie cutter exp farm so I think that may be good thing in the long run. I would like to hear others' thoughts on that.
From a campaign design perspective, I'm unsure either way. On one hand, I agree that every scenario in a campaign needs to serve a purpose, and that one high-quality scenario is better than a dozen low-quality ones. On the other hand, I feel that level-3s are already pretty easy to get; in my most recent TROW playthrough I had several by the end of the 3rd scenario. Even if XP requirements were *increased*, designers should still think carefully about the player's XP budget.

From a player's perspective, I don't like it why my units "plateau". Leveling up units is really satisfying, but once a unit hits L3/4 it often gathers dust on my recall list. The less XP it takes to max out a unit, the sooner they stop being fun to level. AMLAs for all units could help with this, but replies in my thread about it convinced me that AMLAs would have a problematic effect on balance.

Overall, I feel the ideal army composition is a mix of level 1s, 2s, and 3s - that means there's frequent leveling (i.e. fun), lets the player use many different unit types simultaneously, and feels thematic. I think a mix of 1s, 2s, and 3s in most scenarios is what SP should be shooting for, balance-wise.
name wrote: April 25th, 2023, 1:57 am I agree with this; I suspect the glass cannon level 4 spell casters are not going to imbalance campaigns just because their experience cost is lowered to match their utility. They are support units after all.
Hejnewar wrote: April 23rd, 2023, 11:31 pm Honestly I want to see this, because if you focus a lot on mages, then they kinda die without support or you are forced to recruit units which is waste of gold.
I'll be honest, white/red mage spam is my favorite way to play loyalist campaigns. Once they hit level 2+ they're tough enough that they don't need to be babysat, and en masse are often lethal enough to wipe out enemies before they can retaliate. Plus having lots of MoLs means if you do need to mass cannon fodder, the fodder becomes a lot more effective.
name wrote: April 25th, 2023, 1:57 am Because the Cavalryman carries a shield, wears full plate armor and his horse is partly plate clad, whereas the Horseman has no shield, wears partial plate and his horse is unarmored.
But then why does the horseman have more HP 🤔
User avatar
nemaara
Developer
Posts: 333
Joined: May 31st, 2015, 2:13 am

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by nemaara »

The thing is though, those saurian archer concepts all branch (far) off the saurian skirmisher (like the ambusher) while dropping the skirmisher ability itself. None of them offers a decent ranged attack + skirmisher ability. Leaving that role open for the ambusher to fill.

They would also seem a little less far out as branches of the skirmisher line if the ambusher was a mixed fighter. You could even have just one archer unit as a level 3 advancement from Hejnewar's mixed fighter ambusher. Thus only creating a need for one new high quality sprite rather than two.
I don't really think sprites should be the limiting factor here because they already exist in some capacity. I can see the point about ranged attack + skirmishing, I guess it also wouldn't hurt for saurians to be a ranged heavy race which sort of makes sense given their build and slipperiness. So it's a good point and I'll drop that one.
For the reasons detailed above, I have to disagree here. Hoarding experience/veterans over multiple scenarios is more addictive than it is fun. Especially since it robs us of more balanced and clever individual scenarios.
I guess I can explain the exp thing in more depth. Current mainline campaigns mostly rely on leveling for the feeling of army progression. In that sense I think we do have to pay attention as designers as to when the army tends to cap out (and thus no more progression happens for the player). For campaigns like Liberty or DiD, it's possible to tweak the exp pretty easily per scenario since there's so few scenarios and enemies to begin with. I more or less expect you to cap your army in DiD around S8 and in Liberty you probably won't even cap it out. If we design more skirmishy, small exp campaigns like those, lower exp is not a problem. In fact, you can argue that lowering exp promotes the designing of such campaigns which I think is a good thing in part.

For campaigns like HttT or TRoW, however, the large amount of exp and long length means that a capable player can cap their army around S4-5 if they're really fast, or maybe S8 if we're talking about a medium level player. Once you get your L3s, you're not likely to lose them in these campaigns, so that leaves 2/3s of the campaign with not much progression which I don't think is a good thing (see Dalas's comment as well). We have the option of making them smaller (both scenario count and map size) or maybe promoting the use of more L1s and L2s but in this situation the higher exp is beneficial because it makes army capping occur later in the campaign so you're not left playing the majority of it without progression.

In an ideal world we can spend the time to design campaigns really well so that even your veterans get threatened, L3s are sometimes or often lost, we add exp dumps in (limited) AMLAs, etc. but what I'm mainly concerned about is we don't have that time or budget for so much redesigning so I don't want to mess up all of the longer mainline campaigns even more (at this point in time) if it's possible to avoid it. Point is we have to strike a balance between long term vision and our current manpower for balancing.
Honestly I want to see this, because if you focus a lot on mages, then they kinda die without support or you are forced to recruit units which is waste of gold.
The danger is that L2 and L3 mages are quite powerful when used properly in SP. More or less, once you get them and your set of tanky fighter units, the campaign is pretty straightforward to smash from there. It's not that you're going to mass them and forgo the fighter units, it's that if the exp is too low, you can get them way earlier and start steamrolling even earlier. The higher exp for mages stops you from steamrolling earlier. I do have a question of whether or not mages are so strong in MP as well?
User avatar
Yomar
Posts: 392
Joined: October 27th, 2011, 5:14 am
Contact:

Re: Balance changes for 1.18

Post by Yomar »

In MP mages are different, I see that they die easly and rarely lvl up, maybe it's for that reason that I see them not often recruited when ppl use Rebels, Loyals on the other hand nesd them more often, to counter specific units.
Beholded Wesnoth's Origins.
Max G on WIF
Rank 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Post Reply