Wesnoth 0.9.2

[unsung]

Ouff,it takes 1:25 hours to download.Is it a bug or it's normal?

it's probably your connection. I just downloaded it in 8 minutes.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Who screwed the Dwarvish Fighter? It deserves to cost 14 now.

And WHY THE HECK WAS PRINCESS'S BATTLEFIELD REMOVED?!!?!?

[Ankka]

Who screwed the Dwarvish Fighter? It deserves to cost 14 now.

And WHY THE HECK WAS PRINCESS'S BATTLEFIELD REMOVED?!!?!?

It has high resistances and good attacks. I don't think 14 would be good.

[Elvish_Pillager]

It has high resistances

I hate the way everyone talks about the high resistances and conveniently overlooks the low defenses!

and good attacks

Which are only as good as another fighter which costs 14, and also is faster and has a ranged attack, and which also better defense in forest and on grassland, and which also has an ability on its melee attack.

I don't think 14 would be good.

A post which highlights only a very small portion of the issues, and then draws a conclusion based on that, is of dubious merit. I have considered this well; 14 would be less overpowered than the current cost is underpowered, I know that much.

[Noy]

Who screwed the Dwarvish Fighter? It deserves to cost 14 now.

And WHY THE HECK WAS PRINCESS'S BATTLEFIELD REMOVED?!!?!?

#1 I'd like to remind you that now there are now two people in charge of balancing. so when you start making statements like this you are in essence questioning us. If you have a comment a polite note would do, not a prepubecent screech.

#2 I actually called for a drop in the fighter's attack. Why? Because we had dropped the price on everything else in the faction, and I thought with all the drops in cost that there was significant risk of overbalancing, so I had a drop in Fighter's attack by one instituted. Moreover the Guardsman has not been reverted at this time. We make balancing changes based not only on unit stats but also on their wider status in the faction.

#3 comparisons with the Fighter are unfair because of the different strategies involved with both factions. On the balance the melee attack of the Dwarf fighter is far better than that of the Elvish fighter. Having crush and blade makes it far more useful vs the undead faction, rather than just having a capability to do some ranged damage overall. It has more HP than the Elvish version, and really its defensive modifiers are equal on the balance. In some way I would say that having 70-30 Mountain/grassland is better than 60-40, making them a far more difficult but rewarding faction. Furthermore its resistances are exceptional compared to EF. Within the context of its faction as well the DF really is a melee only fighter, and its far more exceptional at this role than the EF which is kinda a jack of all trades, good at nothing unit. It relies on other units to do melee attack or finishing off units. Making it cheap so that people only use it would just be unbalancing and go against the theme of the factio, so we decided to clip its wings a bit. Really in total, a player will lose only three damage more if they hit all three strikes (24 to 21), which isn't that much more and its crush damage has remained the same.

[Elvish_Pillager]

#3

I was comparing it with the Spearman.

[Noy]

#3

I was comparing it with the Spearman.

Might want to make that clear because all you said "another fighter." I just assumed you meant the elvish fighter, because its name is "the Elvish fighter" not spearman. Still it doesn't really matter though, because the same goes for both.

[HellHammer]

Okay, whenever I try to connect ot the server with v 9.2 it goes "Connecting to server..." and then "Could not connect to host." Why is this?

[superabo]

When can we expect the MacOSX version to come out? I'm jealous of all my friends with 0.9.2!

[Dragonking]

Okay, whenever I try to connect ot the server with v 9.2 it goes "Connecting to server..." and then "Could not connect to host." Why is this?

There were some problems with server, now it works fine.
Have fun

[Rothrorn]

When can we expect the MacOSX version to come out? I'm jealous of all my friends with 0.9.2!

Just as soon as Sithrandel or some other good soul can do it. Like most mac users he is probably in a state of shock regarding the Apple-Intel announcement

[Rothrorn]

Also remember that we mac users were lucky enough to get 0.9.1 first, so all things balance out.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Might want to make that clear because all you said "another fighter." I just assumed you meant the elvish fighter, because its name is "the Elvish fighter" not spearman. Still it doesn't really matter though, because the same goes for both.

Well, the Spearman isn't a "jack of all trades, good at nothing" unit. It's quite good at melee combat, and is fairly cheap as well. Between it and the DF, the DF seems quite unreasonable at a cost higher than 15, just as the old DF seemed quite unreasonable at a cost higher than 16.

I also disagree with your "balancing based on the faction" policy, which seems quite selfish to me, considering that it's a cheap way to help multiplayer but it hurts era and campaign designers. I am both, and do not wish to see my armies be thrown out of whack by something that's "good for the default era".

[Noy]

Might want to make that clear because all you said "another fighter." I just assumed you meant the elvish fighter, because its name is "the Elvish fighter" not spearman. Still it doesn't really matter though, because the same goes for both.

Well, the Spearman isn't a "jack of all trades, good at nothing" unit. It's quite good at melee combat, and is fairly cheap as well. Between it and the DF, the DF seems quite unreasonable at a cost higher than 15, just as the old DF seemed quite unreasonable at a cost higher than 16.

Again you completely didn't read my point.
+1 point-> Far more effective Melee attacks, Rather than being limited to just Pierce, the DF has a more effective combination of Blade and Crush, with its secondary damage attack being extremely powerful.

+1 point -> Higher resistances. Having fairly equal modifiers, and better movement rates but one movement point less, really the resistances take the cake. It also has 6 more hp.

16 Gold, vs 14 gold. I think thats pretty clear.

I also disagree with your "balancing based on the faction" policy, which seems quite selfish to me, considering that it's a cheap way to help multiplayer but it hurts era and campaign designers. I am both, and do not wish to see my armies be thrown out of whack by something that's "good for the default era".

Actually that is the stated policy handed down by the lead developer, Balancing changes are made for the most part according to MP. And extensive discussions have gone on with campaign developers as to how changes should be made, the very people who know best what can be unbalanced or not. The sole reason why we didn't balance lvl2 and 3 costs was because several campaigns would be unbalanced if we did. So really that argument holds no water at all.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Again you completely didn't read my point.
+1 point-> Far more effective Melee attacks, Rather than being limited to just Pierce, the DF has a more effective combination of Blade and Crush, with its secondary damage attack being extremely powerful.

+1 point -> Higher resistances. Having fairly equal modifiers, and better movement rates but one movement point less, really the resistances take the cake. It also has 6 more hp.

And after that, -1 point due to the Spearman's ranged attack and first strike. Analysis based on a fairly arbitrary point-scheme without even considering all the aspects of the compared units it generally bogus.

Actually that is the stated policy handed down by the lead developer, Balancing changes are made for the most part according to MP. And extensive discussions have gone on with campaign developers as to how changes should be made, the very people who know best what can be unbalanced or not. The sole reason why we didn't balance lvl2 and 3 costs was because several campaigns would be unbalanced if we did. So really that argument holds no water at all.

You just don't understand my argument. I said "balancing based on factions", not "balancing based on multiplayer". Allow me to explain:

The two balancing schemes are as follows: Mine, which states that each unit should be balanced to be of as equal power as possible; and yours, which states that each faction should be of as equal power as possible, with secondarially the goal of making the units fairly balanced.

The only conflict between those two schemes is when a faction can be balanced by unbalanicing a unit. Thus, if they ever conflict, then your scheme says we should make some units overpowered, and some underpowered.

I, as an era designer, will assemble units into eras which consist of units, mainly from the Default area, but with no care paid to which factions they come from. I may wish to use a set of units which your scheme will make all overpowered, and a set of units which your scheme will make all underpowered.

By your scheme, I cannot do this and keep a balanced era. By my scheme, I can. By your scheme, the eras will be balanced; by mine, the eras will also be balanced. With yours, however, this will come quicker, just as putting a band-aid on a stab wound will make it seem healed quicker on the surface. But if you try to go any deeper, to use any units for anything but the Default era, it will hurt.