0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes
Moderator: Forum Moderators
If someone is a developer/has CVS access, he should get the title. It does help with forum discussion. I think ott and invisible philosopher may also need the title.
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
Oh ok, but as scott says they need to have the title because otherwise i'm gonna rant again and again.turin wrote:No, DK has CVS access, and I'm not sure but I suspect Noy has it too. They are directly committing these changes.Disto wrote: Noy all your power are through the devs who have access to CVS so basically they are requests , if the devs felt they did not want these changes they are well within their rights to not impliment them. Nothing here is definite and players have small powers over the devs, they will do what they feel is right and not what people think.
In short, Noy and DK are now the official MP developers.
Re: 0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes
To convince you, I'm going to need you to test the change, which will require you to play it in a release. Please don't spite the change because you don't like me.Noy wrote:You're going to have to come up with a better answer than "no" to convince us Jetryl.jetryl wrote: No.
There have been many other changes to the saurians and drakes in this release, which need to be viewed holistically.
Last edited by Jetrel on May 31st, 2005, 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Doc Paterson
- Drake Cartographer
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: February 21st, 2005, 9:37 pm
- Location: Kazakh
- Contact:
As long as we're giving out titles....Can I have a title? I think Arch Duke of Radiant Grandeur would do nicely.scott wrote:If someone is a developer/has CVS access, he should get the title. It does help with forum discussion. I think ott and invisible philosopher may also need the title.
I will not tell you my corner / where threads don't get locked because of mostly no reason /
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses. -Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses. -Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme
Upon discussion with several people and the arguments presented here, I'm inclined to tone down the change to the Walking corpse. It will only increase to 6 gold rather than 7 in 0.9.2. I still think it could do with one more, but I'm not wedded to it, so we'll see how it is at 7 and revisit the issue at a later date.
I think the goblin is perfectly priced however. People generally purchase them when they have 8 to 10 gold, and only against certain factions and situations. In this case I think its perfectly priced and balanced.
I think the goblin is perfectly priced however. People generally purchase them when they have 8 to 10 gold, and only against certain factions and situations. In this case I think its perfectly priced and balanced.
There is already a perfectly good thread for discussing the Ulf i dunno why it has to be discussed here again.
I made what I felt was a very strong suggestion for the Ulf and, as yet, it has not recieved any big critcism but has also not been much debated. The suggest is in this part of the thread
Essentially it suggests that the Ulf loses the ability to start a new berserk round once he drops below a certain percentage of health (whatever the current % that causes a red hp bar is proposed as the initial % level). Any new combat after that he acts as a normal unit for defense and offense until his health is restored past the "critical" level. This allows him to have off and def berserk attacks but will reduce his suicide rate on offense and prevents his ability from being overly exploited on defense. However, if he is lucky he can still kill an opponent in one turn and if unlucky he can still die.
It is really a major change to the berserk concept - rather than fight to the death, he fights till near death. The major issue to focus on then becomes rather more about how much health the attacker and defender have at the end of the combat, rather than which dies. Also, therefore, resistance becomes an issue.
This does have some very new and interesting tactical implications and I think should be discussed as a serious possibility - a new thread would be best or at least the old thread linked above
I made what I felt was a very strong suggestion for the Ulf and, as yet, it has not recieved any big critcism but has also not been much debated. The suggest is in this part of the thread
Essentially it suggests that the Ulf loses the ability to start a new berserk round once he drops below a certain percentage of health (whatever the current % that causes a red hp bar is proposed as the initial % level). Any new combat after that he acts as a normal unit for defense and offense until his health is restored past the "critical" level. This allows him to have off and def berserk attacks but will reduce his suicide rate on offense and prevents his ability from being overly exploited on defense. However, if he is lucky he can still kill an opponent in one turn and if unlucky he can still die.
It is really a major change to the berserk concept - rather than fight to the death, he fights till near death. The major issue to focus on then becomes rather more about how much health the attacker and defender have at the end of the combat, rather than which dies. Also, therefore, resistance becomes an issue.
This does have some very new and interesting tactical implications and I think should be discussed as a serious possibility - a new thread would be best or at least the old thread linked above
Last edited by dtw on May 31st, 2005, 6:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Signature dropped due to use of img tag
@ dibblethewrecker
Sorry, I think it is not possible to do so in the current state of develpment. This would force us to do changes to the code, that could cause different other problems. I think it is a good way to revert the ulf to the state of 0.8.11, because it was thought to be very balanced in this version.
I do believe that Dragonking and Noy will do a good job at balancing. These changes will be tested very much, resulting in quite some activity on the cvs-server. In the last days there were sveral games being played there, though it would be good, if there was even more testing of the changes.
Sorry, I think it is not possible to do so in the current state of develpment. This would force us to do changes to the code, that could cause different other problems. I think it is a good way to revert the ulf to the state of 0.8.11, because it was thought to be very balanced in this version.
I do believe that Dragonking and Noy will do a good job at balancing. These changes will be tested very much, resulting in quite some activity on the cvs-server. In the last days there were sveral games being played there, though it would be good, if there was even more testing of the changes.
- Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
Re: 0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes
I still don't think there can be THAT big of a discrepancy...Noy wrote:...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.
No, none of them said that. Protesting a change is very different from requesting a reversion; the former happens every time a change is proposed, while that later happens only very rarely.Noy wrote: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).
Well, you've had a day, considering that I spent my whole day yesterday programming instead of participating in Wesnoth. Where's the rest?Noy wrote: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]
Not directly, but I seem to remember some people talking about how the Corpse was still more powerful than it should be. Might just be my memory tricking me though.Ankka wrote:I support making it cheaper, but IMvHO the corpse should stay. No one has complained of it anywhere, I think.
I don't see anyone else here believing that they're wrong either. You'd have to be in a pretty weird mental state to actually hold a belief which was that a belief of yours was false.Ankka wrote:To help Noy here: I SUPPORT CHANGING THE ULF BACK TO WHAT IT WAS IN 0.8.11
EP's problem here is that he can't believe he's wrong.
Chances are, you meant that I can't believe that I could possibly be wrong. However, that is not at all relevant to the present debate, since none of my arguments of importance have been countered. If no-one disagrees with me on the facts, then I have no cause to believe that I'm wrong; and if opinions conflict, there is no 'wrong'.
Actually, considering that I have no intention of using Ulfserkers, I should probably step out of this discussion, since it doesn't concern me so much.
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.
-
- Posts: 258
- Joined: January 26th, 2005, 11:07 pm
- Location: You really do not want to know
Just to note that I'm also for a reversion of the Ulf to 0.8.11 - anything else I may have said or suggested was for the case where reversion wasn't an option.
That doesn't mean I don't think some other aspects of later versions can't be considered (the lowered resistances sort of fits the with the concept and the artwork, but there would need to be corresponding changes to maintain balance) but that can be done at a later date.
(and yes I do play MP regularly - increase that count by one, Noy )
That doesn't mean I don't think some other aspects of later versions can't be considered (the lowered resistances sort of fits the with the concept and the artwork, but there would need to be corresponding changes to maintain balance) but that can be done at a later date.
(and yes I do play MP regularly - increase that count by one, Noy )
Re: 0.9.2 Proposed Balancing Changes
you claimed 1 and I showed 8. Thats a fairly large discrepency.Elvish Pillager wrote:I still don't think there can be THAT big of a discrepancy...
Thats a distortion of the truth Pillager. I know most of them, and asked them to post in that thread. BBJ just posted to say so (and I did not speak to him prior). So don't try to say that they aren't saying something that they aren't, because most of them want a revision.Elvish Pillager wrote:No, none of them said that. Protesting a change is very different from requesting a reversion; the former happens every time a change is proposed, while that later happens only very rarely.Noy wrote: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).
Pillager I'm not here to cater to your every need. I think its quite clear that a significant amount of people do want to see it reverted... far more than it seems you would like to admit, so I didn't bother going around to get 30. Although I am at 21. (annka and Novonda)Elvish Pillager wrote:Well, you've had a day, considering that I spent my whole day yesterday programming instead of participating in Wesnoth. Where's the rest?Noy wrote: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]
edit 22 (thanks JS!)
Last edited by Noy on May 31st, 2005, 10:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
I just want to say I'm happy multiplayer finally has some dedicated developers. IMO this should have happened long ago. In Nov. of 2004 me and Telly fooled around with balance but we both decided it would be too much trouble to actually make changes we wanted. We were thinking of doing much more extreme changes than just balancing and I figure it wouldn't have been accepted.
I'm pretty busy lately but maybe I'll try to help with maps/balance. The changes look good so far. Keep it up! I also find EP and Noy taking stabs at each other rather funny.
I'm pretty busy lately but maybe I'll try to help with maps/balance. The changes look good so far. Keep it up! I also find EP and Noy taking stabs at each other rather funny.
I support the revesion of the ulf as Noy suggests it.
Off-topic, but related to balance:
Perhaps a few other things should be done as well to the mp balance: several units in Age of Heroes appear as leaders for a faction yet they're level 2...:
orcish slayer
orcish crossbow
troll rocklobber
javelin thrower
just to name a few. There were more, perhaps. Can't remember now.
Off-topic, but related to balance:
Perhaps a few other things should be done as well to the mp balance: several units in Age of Heroes appear as leaders for a faction yet they're level 2...:
orcish slayer
orcish crossbow
troll rocklobber
javelin thrower
just to name a few. There were more, perhaps. Can't remember now.