Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

General feedback and discussion of the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Velensk »

Rya: I doubt you'd see anymore units removed from multiplayer. The effect you are really seeing is that mutliplayer doesn't add the units created for campaigns. Also, if you really think that each multiplayer map has each match-up played that few times then you haven't been paying attention. There is less density than in starcraft because there are more match-ups however that doesn't mean that each match-up hasn't been seen 300+ times.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."

User avatar
thespaceinvader
Retired Art Director
Posts: 8414
Joined: August 25th, 2007, 10:12 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by thespaceinvader »

More likely several thousand per matchup per map, if not more. The game's been around for a while, and is very much played.
http://thespaceinvader.co.uk | http://thespaceinvader.deviantart.com
Back to work. Current projects: Catching up on commits. Picking Meridia back up. Sprite animations, many and varied.

Eskon
Posts: 184
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 2:21 pm
Location: Esslingen, Germany

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Eskon »

There may be lots of matches, but not all of them are useful for balancing purposes, as you need matches with as few mistakes as possible, played by skilled players, to get any information relevant to balancing.

Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Velensk »

That was why my estimate was lower than Space Invaders.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."

Shatner
Posts: 15
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 8:05 pm

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Shatner »

How was the Drake faction molded into their current, balanced form? They have several potent advantages (high damage, high hp, every unit (except one) possessing a melee AND ranged attack, high move AND excellent move-type) that would be difficult to reign in. In fact, they are a cool faction precisely because they can flaunt one of the game's core obstacles (getting your units into an offensive position despite terrain and enemy ZoC). I am not asking what the devs did to balance the Drakes (poor defense, high cost, weakness to a common damage type) but rather what steps were made to identify the problem and identify a solution.


Also, I find the Drake's resistances to be odd. Their advantages (decent resistance to the 1st and 3rd most common damage types (blade and impact, respectively), massive resistance to the 4th most common (fire)) would seem to outweigh their disadvantages (a mild weakness to the 2nd most common damage type (piercing) and massive weaknesses to the two least common types (cold and arcane, which are only available to three tier 1 units at all: dark adept, ghost and Saurian Augur)). While I understand the other balancing mechanics arrayed against the drakes, how is this one managed?

User avatar
Zarel
Posts: 700
Joined: July 15th, 2009, 8:24 am
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Zarel »

Eskon wrote:There may be lots of matches, but not all of them are useful for balancing purposes, as you need matches with as few mistakes as possible, played by skilled players, to get any information relevant to balancing.
SO NOT TRUE.

Balancers should not be thinking like this. A game is not played solely by skilled players; it is played by everyone who plays it. If the game is only fun (i.e. balanced) for the most skilled of players, something is wrong. While fine-tuned balance is more important for skilled players, the game should be roughly balanced for all players.

Imagine if, in Wesnoth, when new players played each other, Northerners would always beat every other race. The game would be impossible to play casually!
Proud creator of the :whistle: smiley | I prefer the CC-0 license.

Eskon
Posts: 184
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 2:21 pm
Location: Esslingen, Germany

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Eskon »

If one faction has a considerably higher share of wins among beginners, that means that the faction is easier and more straightforward to play, not that it's inherently more powerful than others. Having newbie-friendly and newbie-unfriendly factions in itself is not necessarily a bad thing; it becomes doubtful if one faction were absolutely mindless to play and you had to discover the secret techniques and handshakes in order to play the others. Thankfully, Wesnoth is way past this stage, easily evidenced that if you ask around which faction people think is the weakest you will get plenty of mentions for every one of them. At this point it's safe to say that the "rough balance" required for casual play has long been achieved - we're fully in the fine-tuning balance stage, and the changes for this fine-tuning are unlikely to upset the rough balance again.

And that is why, at this point, the balancers should pay attention to how the game is played at a high level, to fine-tune the balance. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

User avatar
Zarel
Posts: 700
Joined: July 15th, 2009, 8:24 am
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Zarel »

Eskon wrote:And that is why, at this point, the balancers should pay attention to how the game is played at a high level, to fine-tune the balance. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Oh, whoops; sorry, I thought we were still talking about balancing in general.
Proud creator of the :whistle: smiley | I prefer the CC-0 license.

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

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Noy »

Zarel wrote:
Eskon wrote:There may be lots of matches, but not all of them are useful for balancing purposes, as you need matches with as few mistakes as possible, played by skilled players, to get any information relevant to balancing.
SO NOT TRUE.

Balancers should not be thinking like this. A game is not played solely by skilled players; it is played by everyone who plays it. If the game is only fun (i.e. balanced) for the most skilled of players, something is wrong. While fine-tuned balance is more important for skilled players, the game should be roughly balanced for all players.
Yeah, well thats the reality of it, so suck it up.
Zarel wrote: Imagine if, in Wesnoth, when new players played each other, Northerners would always beat every other race. The game would be impossible to play casually!
First off your gedankenexperiment is not even close to reality. The game is quite playable for newer players but some factions may seem unbalanced in multiplayer (but is irrelevant for singleplayer.) Thats acceptable to us, because the wesnoth entirely balanced for top tier play. Why? Because we have that luxury and we think it makes it a unique game. We don't think we should waste our effort on making the game balanced for people who come from a wide array of backgrounds, the majority of whom don't stay. By having a difficult learning curve, we offers real rewards for taking the time to learn the game. Coincidently those are the people who stay and often make real contributions to development.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.

Eskon
Posts: 184
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 2:21 pm
Location: Esslingen, Germany

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Eskon »

Zarel wrote:
Eskon wrote:And that is why, at this point, the balancers should pay attention to how the game is played at a high level, to fine-tune the balance. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Oh, whoops; sorry, I thought we were still talking about balancing in general.
Re-reading my statement, I guess I promoted the misunderstanding. So no harm done ;)

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

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Noy »

Shatner wrote:How was the Drake faction molded into their current, balanced form? They have several potent advantages (high damage, high hp, every unit (except one) possessing a melee AND ranged attack, high move AND excellent move-type) that would be difficult to reign in. In fact, they are a cool faction precisely because they can flaunt one of the game's core obstacles (getting your units into an offensive position despite terrain and enemy ZoC). I am not asking what the devs did to balance the Drakes (poor defense, high cost, weakness to a common damage type) but rather what steps were made to identify the problem and identify a solution.
When DK and I came in about five years ago there were stats already assigned, likely by Neorice or the artist formerly known as jetryl, largely based on their artistic views. We examined present strategies looked at imbalances and corrected them over time. Once you start playing regularly among high level players these things get noticed. It may not be initially agreed upon, because there are usually a lot of dissenting views. However over time consensus on problems are built and we craft solutions. I think over these years we've corrected the most egregious problems and are just on the look out for more latent problems.

Also, I don't believe Drakes "flaunt" a core obstacle: I didn't know terrain is a obstacle at all; its part of the game which you play over, which offers advantages and disadvantages.
Shatner wrote:Also, I find the Drake's resistances to be odd. Their advantages (decent resistance to the 1st and 3rd most common damage types (blade and impact, respectively), massive resistance to the 4th most common (fire)) would seem to outweigh their disadvantages (a mild weakness to the 2nd most common damage type (piercing) and massive weaknesses to the two least common types (cold and arcane, which are only available to three tier 1 units at all: dark adept, ghost and Saurian Augur)). While I understand the other balancing mechanics arrayed against the drakes, how is this one managed?
[/quote][/quote]

The weakness to pierce is a little more than "mild," particularly considering Drakes low defence. Against spearmen, archers and horses it becomes a full blown liability. Honestly, most of these questions are answered by JW's how to play.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.

Don Hewitt.

Shatner
Posts: 15
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 8:05 pm

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Shatner »

Terrain is an obstacle to where you are going and an asset once you get there (the former sapping move points, the latter giving you your defensive rating). This is especially telling while on the offensive because the enemy has had a chance to grab all the good spots first and their ZoC further limits your ability to position your units.

The Drakes (along with other fliers) have the advantage of incurring the minimal MP cost while moving over almost all terrain along with having higher-than-average MPs. Therefore, while the orcs and humans and merfolk have to accept that those forests will prevent them from reaching that wounded unit in time, the drakes and ghosts and gryphons are not so impeded.


As an aside, I don't actually know how the percentages from bonuses (ToD, leadership), penalties (ToD, slow) and resistances (positive and negative) stack. A two or three sentence explanation would help me understand how large a difference the drakes' pierce weakness makes.

Oh, and thanks everyone for all the replies. I look forward to catching some of you on MP sometime.

User avatar
Zarel
Posts: 700
Joined: July 15th, 2009, 8:24 am
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Zarel »

Noy wrote:First off your gedankenexperiment is not even close to reality.
Erm, yes, that's why it's called a gedankenexperiment and not reality? o_O That's why it's given as an example of what not to do, and it's a good thing Wesnoth isn't actually like that?

The rest of your post is similar: It's not actually disagreeing with my statements.
Proud creator of the :whistle: smiley | I prefer the CC-0 license.

User avatar
SirTheta
Posts: 32
Joined: February 7th, 2009, 2:51 am
Location: Behind You

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by SirTheta »

Shatner wrote:Terrain is an obstacle to where you are going and an asset once you get there (the former sapping move points, the latter giving you your defensive rating). This is especially telling while on the offensive because the enemy has had a chance to grab all the good spots first and their ZoC further limits your ability to position your units.
Not such an asset to drakes, notice they're mostly 30% & 40% defense on terrain.


Also note that Undead have a very clear advantage, though not necessarily an impossible one, over Drakes (which you touched upon when you mentioned the Level 1 Units).

Eskon
Posts: 184
Joined: August 12th, 2008, 2:21 pm
Location: Esslingen, Germany

Re: Missing Dwarves in Multiplayer

Post by Eskon »

Not more of an advantage than drakes have over them. Undead are generally considered the slowest faction, while drakes are the fastest, so the 19-2 damage of the adept at night does not come in as often as the undead player will like.

Post Reply