0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes

Discussion among members of the development team.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes

Post by Noy »

As some of you may have heard, there is a push to complete a release version of wesnoth in the next few months. In addition to this Dragonking and I have been put to the task of balancing the factions. Here is the first tier of balancing changes that we have proposed for the next version. These ones are fairly easy, as most have been discussed for quite some time. They will be implemented in V 0.9.2 unless legitimate and serious disagreement is to be had.

Orcish Archer- New 5-2 alternate ranged fire attack +2 gold (12 ->14 gold)
Troll - remove intelligent trait, +1 XP to whelp (32->33XP)
Dwarven Thunderer - -1 gold (18 ->17gold)
Fencer - -1 gold (18 -> 17g gold)
Ranger 7-3 melee (7-4 ->7-3 melee)
Ulf - reversion to 0.8.11
Skirmisher- -1 movement (7 -> 6MP ) and +1 gold (14 -> 15 gold)
Walking corpse - +1 gold (5 -> 6 gold)
Gryphon rider - -1 gold (25 -> 24 gold)
Glider - remove marksmanship

edit: added current stastitics of changed units
Last edited by Noy on May 31st, 2005, 3:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
elscouta
Posts: 46
Joined: November 21st, 2004, 1:47 pm

Post by elscouta »

They all sounds good, except the walking corpse one. Why? I have never seen an undead roll over a map with walking corpse. And it sounds like a +40% increase. Quite a lot... Why not putting it to 6 first?
User avatar
Ankka
Posts: 594
Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 2:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Ankka »

2 questions:

Why have the corpse cost increased? It's hardly good enough currently to have a cost of 7. And it's the only really cost effective undead vs undead unit...

And why no marksman for the glider? Currently the damage it does is very low. 4-3 marksman during day doesn't really overpower it... or does it?
MadMax
Posts: 1792
Joined: June 6th, 2004, 3:29 pm
Location: Weldyn, Wesnoth

Post by MadMax »

Orcish Archer or Elvish Archer?

It seems a little strange that forest-loving creatures would use fire.
"ILLEGITIMIS NON CARBORUNDUM"

Father of Flight to Freedom
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/FlightToFreedom
User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

Orcish archer.

---

I think all of these changes are good.
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: 0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Noy wrote:Archer- 5-2 alternate ranged fire attack
Troll - remove intelligent trait, +1 XP
Ranger 7-3 melee
Skirmisher- -1 movement and +1 gold (15)
Gryphon rider - -1 gold (24)
These are good.
Noy wrote:Dwarven Thunderer - -1 gold (17)
Fencer - -1 gold(17)
Glider - no marksmanship
These changes are too weak; the Thunderer and Fencer should cost 16, and the Glider needs a cost boost as well; with Marksman, he needs to cost at least 18 gold, and without it, 17 might be OK...
Noy wrote:Ulf - reversion to 0.8.11
Legitimate and serious disagreements have already been made to this.
Noy wrote:Walking corpse - +2 gold (7)
Not sure. It's pretty weak still without ZoC, and a +2 increase is A LOT; it's a 40% increase, equivalent to increasing the Grunt's cost to 17. An increase to 6 would definitely be OK, though.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
ott
Inactive Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: September 28th, 2004, 10:20 am

Re: 0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes

Post by ott »

Let me clarify this a little.
Orcish Archer - add alternate 5-2 ranged fire attack
remove "intelligent" trait from trolls
Troll Whelp - experience to advance 32 -> 33 XP
Dwarvish Thunderer - cost 19 -> 17 gp
Fencer - cost 18 -> 17 gp
Ranger - melee attack 7-4 -> 7-3
Dwarvish Ulfserker - revert to 0.8.11 (restore resistances and berserk on defend)
Saurian Skirmisher - movement 7 -> 6 and cost 14 -> 15 gp
Walking Corpse - cost 5 -> 7 gp
Gryphon Rider - cost 25 -> 24 gp
Drake Glider line - revert to no marksmanship
This quote is not attributable to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: 0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes

Post by Noy »

Pillager wrote:Ulf - reversion to 0.8.11
Legitimate and serious disagreements have already been made to this.
After looking at the issue we disagree. Your contention that the ulf is overpowered because it is a "extreme" and some vague statement that any "extremes are bad" really wasn't much of an argument at all. It can be easily pointed out that by having berzerk on defence, the extreme advantage berzerk on offense is balanced by an equally extreme disadvantage of berzerk on defence. Secondly, your opinion ran counter to the bulk of opinion voiced by the multiplayer community... which did not complain about the ulf before 9.0, and did afterwards.

The only other group that did have a problem with the ulf was the SP community, claiming the Ulf was too weak. I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse when I say this. The reason why the ulf is weak in campaigns has nothing to do with the ulf at all. It has everything to do with the AI behavior that targets weak units first. If the AI had a different behaviour it wouldn't attack the Ulf and people would not be complaining. Secondly I think it was very apparent that SP people had not developed the same strategy for using the ulf as the MP community had, which likely contributed to the false belief that it was useless.... When used like a mage, it was quite a balanced unit, that required good strategy to use. In any case Pillager, this is the exact opposite of what you were claiming so you can't claim this as a valid argument yourself, even if it was true.

therefore, I do not believe that a legitimate case can be made that revision should not happen.
User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

About the ulf: Whatever the MP community says should happen, should happen. The ulf has NO PLACE in SP. It just doesn't work. I've said why before, don't feel like repeating myself, but basically if the ulf needs changes to balance MP, those changes should happen with no regard for SP.
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Post by Noy »

Firstly about the walking corpse

Our contention about the WC is that when compared to the only other Lvl0 unit, the Goblin spearman, its a definate bargain.

It has similar stats to the Goblin, with the exception of poorer resistances and slightly less powerful attack (5-2 vs 4-3 for the goblin with the goblin having a 4-1 ranged as well) so at very least I would say that it "could" be 2 gold less. But the WC also has plague is a very powerful ability that gives you free units, units that do not have to pay upkeep. Many players just use walking corpses as blockers even without zoc, as a staple unit.

Furthermore our change was also predicated on some beliefs on the effects of other balancing changes. The WC/dark adept combination is a very effective strategy, especially against drakes. With the reversion of the Saurian skirmisher, really Drakes will be less capable to counter this strategy, and therefore will require this to be changed.

Also we are now likely to up the Orcish Archer cost to 14 gold, in light of the addition of the fire attack
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: 0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Noy wrote:Your contention that the ulf is overpowered because it is a "extreme"
Nay, you're mixing my arguments. I say the Ulf is unbalanced because of the extremes, which is a fairly abstract piece of reasoning; I'm just saying that under its rules, it's nigh-impossible to place the power level correctly.

My belief that the ulf is (was) overpowered came from my personal playing experience...

It's now about as reasonable as it can get without having its basic concept changed.
Noy wrote:opinion voiced by the multiplayer community
There's two things about your posts that *really* annoy me, and this is one of them. Why do you think you know so much about this 'multiplayer community' that you can speak for them? For instance, in this thread you stated that most people would agree with what you said --- and that thread contains only one agreement with your opinion! I simply can't believe that the MP community is so different than the forum that what most MPers believe is the same as what only one forum user believes.
Noy wrote:therefore, I do not believe that a legitimate case can be made that revision should not happen.
The second thing is that based on your disagreement with my point of view, (which you acknowledge --- a very good thing in itself) you also believe that such a disagreement cannot be correct. There are only two people I have ever met who I know think that the Ulfserker should be reverted, of which one is you, and you seem to think that no legitimate case can be made against it? You think that based on some group of opinions --- even if there are more of them than yourself, even if half of the players of Wesnoth would agree with you --- that there cannot be a valid argument against you?

Show me the names of 15 MPers who agree that the Ulfserker should be reverted, and I'll have a good deal more respect for your opinion. Show me 30 such, and I'll agree that the "Most MPers agree with me" argument has some validity.

Lastly: I really don't mean to turn this into a flame war --- that's the last thing any of us want, I think --- but *argh* I'm afraid I'm having trouble coming up with something to say that isn't inflammatory...
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Noy wrote:Our contention about the WC is that when compared to the only other Lvl0 unit, the Goblin spearman, its a definate bargain.
Based on this, I'd say that you shouldn't change only one based on a discrepancy --- make the Corpse cost 6 and the Goblin 7, and go from there.
Noy wrote:Also we are now likely to up the Orcish Archer cost to 14 gold, in light of the addition of the fire attack
[/quote]
Good idea. It also helps keep the Orcish ranged units from being too powerful, since the orcs are 'supposed to be' primarially melee units...
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
Disto
Posts: 2039
Joined: November 1st, 2004, 7:40 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: 0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes

Post by Disto »

Ranger 7-3 melee (7-4 ->7-3 melee)
I really do not like this change, perhaps we can make it to 8-3 or 9-3 and then it won't be so huge, but doing this change may make the Elves unbalanced again.
Creator of A Seed of Evil
Creator of the Marauders
Food or Wesnoth? I'll have Wesnoth
Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

I like the 0.8.11 Ulfserker. I think it added alot of new strategy to the game, and forced people to use different -- yet legitimate -- tactics.

The proposed alternatives I have seen, such as limiting it to three attacks I think could 'balance' it but would also make it rather boring. One might as well simply make it a unit with a large number of attacks, imho.

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: 0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes

Post by Noy »

Elvish Pillager wrote:
Noy wrote:opinion voiced by the multiplayer community
There's two things about your posts that *really* annoy me, and this is one of them. Why do you think you know so much about this 'multiplayer community' that you can speak for them? For instance, in this thread you stated that most people would agree with what you said --- and that thread contains only one agreement with your opinion! I simply can't believe that the MP community is so different than the forum that what most MPers believe is the same as what only one forum user believes.
You are absolutely correct pillager, there is only one person supporting me in that thread. Unfortunately what you fail to point out is that there was a much larger thread before that, one that many Mpers did post. MPers generally don't like to post on the message board. And I've tried let me tell you... the best I could do was here Incidentally this thread is about... suprise suprise: ULFS! And in this thread it has 8 MP players say that they want a reversion (miq, Themroc, PG, BBJ, Darkmoon, Shrink, Hiero, and tomsik). This doesn't include 10 more (selfish werido, Elvish Prestly, a, Soliton, Doc patterson, ZDZ, kirit, hudson, krystian, son of inhilator, and pikel) who didn't post, and I know they want a revision or recently asked.

Show me the names of 15 MPers who agree that the Ulfserker should be reverted, and I'll have a good deal more respect for your opinion. Show me 30 such, and I'll agree that the "Most MPers agree with me" argument has some validity.
That makes 19, give me one day and I'll get 30, because there are people I know that want a revision but I wouldn't want to say because I haven't asked them If I could post their name, or I know they wouldn't mind.[/url]
Last edited by Noy on May 29th, 2005, 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply