Nightmares of Meloen faction

[Skizzaltix]

Have you tried Syncro? I've never used it, but I hear rather good things about it.

[krotop]

That's fine with me, still a 1.5 version needs to be created. And also I need to learn how to use this svn tool, something I'm completly new to, like Velensk. I don't know if using this method will really be more productive than just downloading the era on campaign server, make modifications, uploading the new version on campaign server and warn the era maintainer about changes.

[krotop]

*update bump.

The banding ability has been modified to work only on offense, under FreeAsABeer's suggestion.

Instead of repeating the arguments, here are the pms relevant to the matter :

Using the creeps, I think those are a bit both too good and one-dimensional.
I think you could reduce their power by activating the banding attack only on attack while the creeps defending on their own. Another step you could consider is only considering in the banding attack the creeps that have one MP left (for now 4 creeps have a potential 12 attacks if none dies in the process).
For the one-dimension of the creeps, the problem is that having a big group of creeps is good on both the banding-attack and banding-upkeep. I would think that having a natural balance between these two would prevent from potential abuse of the creeps. The idea I have in mind now is that the banding-upkeep could be equal to the number of creeps in the longest chain (or other formula). This way you would have a natural balance between your benefit of putting the creeps together so that the fight together and the upkeep that would be growing with the size of the group.

It seems there is a general complaint about the creeper's power. So your ideas to change them are quite welcome.
I'm not really up for the "mp left" idea. Although it is fair power reducing, I feel that the ability is already quite hard to use not to add to its complexity.
For your idea of changing the banding upkeep, it is very ambivalent and requires some thought. I see a lot of benefit in it but also drawbacks. Probably something that appeal to other stats tweaking such as power and price. It is simply dropping the concept of "unit taking several hexes" which was behind the creepers, but quite possibly this concept is just not sustainable in the general design or balance of wesnoth.
I like the "attack-only" idea, it is rather intuitive and simple to do as far as I can tell. It will make the unit hit-able by anyone which is a lot of reduce in power. I'll probably keep this one idea, for now, until I can figure out a bit more of the consequences the banding upkeep change.
[...]
Oh, also, to reply to your one-dimensional argument : my belief, or maybe was it just hope, when I created the creepers is that the restraint in tactics and logistics when having a lot of creepers would be enough to devaluate their 'exponential' growth in a more or less balance way. In other words, I thought that when you have a too big cluster of creepers, it would be so hard to manoeuver them that it would be very detrimental for their efficiency, and that bringing reinforcements would be slow and costy, in such a way that going heavy for creepers would not disbablance the game. However, most of the people I saw playing Meloen's seem to disagree.

And to add to the underlined part, I finally think this would be too detrimental for the following reasons :
- it will encourage very odd and unintuitive tactical moves in order to "cheat" the banding_upkeep price
- it will bring back the problem I wanted to counter with my banding_upkeep : having lots of cheap village stealers running across the map and distracting the opponent freely.
- it will have some vicious side effects, one of them being the odd pattern of recruit to avoid the banding upkeep
I'm not developping the good sides unless someone wants to save this idea from getting dropped.
Still, thanks for the playtest and thought share, I hope the "attack only" change will be enough, but if some of you think it's not the case, please report it

[Thrawn]

banding
*mtg playing inside is pleased*

sorry for lack of better post

[Skizzaltix]

Actually, I kind of like his suggestion for the banding upkeep. You could "cheat" the system by having, say, a whole bunch of chains of three creepers, but while you have a lot of free units, you're only getting a third (Okay, fine, two fifths) of your potential bonus.
On the other hand, maybe that's about the practical number anyway? I haven't played the faction in a little while, so I can't remember
If you can come up with a better system, that would be awesome, though.

RE the SVN--Its practicality grows exponentially with the number of people working on the same part of the project. If there are only two or three people, it rarely becomes an issue, but if you have something more in the range of five or six.... Things become confusing, quickly, and some updates are inevitably lost, resulting in the confusion and frustration of the coders </personal experience>

[krotop]

So your point is like FAAB : there would be a balance between the price you pay and the benefit you get from having numerous creepers. This is somewhat true, indeed you'll pay for using the ability. In your exemple, if I understand correctly, you have 5 creepers and decide to band 3 of them and have the 2 others busy elsewhere. In that case the banding upkeep does nicely its job. But what if I want to reinforce an area of the map with 5 creepers, like 7 hexes far ? To avoid to pay I'll try to make them move disparately while my point will be to use them banded, that's rather unnatural tactically and realistically, and a bit frustrating gameplay wise since it will greatly slow the move just to counter the side effect of moving together. Actually I believe it would be so hard to use that I would prefer to mainly restrain the creeper to village stealing, decoying and defense hole filling.

If I had to make the change bluntly, it would be globally detrimental for the gameplay in my humble opinion, because it will lead to something contradictory in the general definition of the role of the creeper. If it is intended to be a lonesome decoy, then why giving him banding, and if he's meant to fight in bands, why shooting its ability to a point it becomes useless or makes you develop clumpsy move tricks ? The problem is that the creeper is really relying a lot on its banding skill.

To make this idea worth the try, I believe it's necessary to reduce the influence of banding and to make the creeper a bit more autonomous. Probably increase the price to 8, make the attack 3-3 or 4-3 and give 2 or 3 additionnal hps. In that case, it's role would become closer to the standard lvl0 fighting units', which is not a bad thing because we already know they work well, and with the creeper having it's own specificity like the zombi having plague.

But I'm afraid I'll still call this plan B. It feels like the unit concept wouldn't go as far, I don't know how to put it... make the gameplay less audacious. And I'm not sure yet that the banding, as it is already, is not sustainable. I have consideration in the opinion of the people who gave it, but not to the point that a theory only on such a complex matter would be enough to convince me to drop the idea. With my apologizes, I'd like to continue the tests until someone provides a factual report where a creeper-heavy strategy is unbalancing the game.

[Skizzaltix]

Good point--For some reason, I hadn't thought of splitting them up to move and regrouping to attack. Though, is that a problem? It means that you can keep them in a band, and have them be faster but costlier, or you can sacrifice some MS to keep them cheap

What I had meant is that you have a whole bunch of creepers, all in fairly small groups of the same size.

[krotop]

Though, is that a problem? It means that you can keep them in a band, and have them be faster but costlier, or you can sacrifice some MS to keep them cheap
What I had meant is that you have a whole bunch of creepers, all in fairly small groups of the same size.

Oh, right, I misunderstood your example sorry . Ok, what you described is what I spelt as "clumpsy move tricks". I believe that these tactical manipulations would be ok, if not interesting, if used sporadically, but would become tiresome in the long run if you get to separate/regroup every time you want to use them on a front.
Argh... I might have some bias somewhere because I feel like there's something inherently wrong in that split/band dance, but when I think about the current banding upkeep it seems you could use the same arguments depending on your taste.

[Skizzaltix]

Well, I guess the trick will be to test both methods and see which one works best.
And, of course, keep a clear mind in case a better idea comes along

[FAAB]

*update bump.
The banding ability has been modified to work only on offense, under FreeAsABeer's suggestion.

If you start following my suggestions, this faction will turn quickly into the nightmares of krotop
I was going private as what the meloen's needs least now is change proposals, but I will go public to save you a copy and paste. What the meloen's needs more now is some good play testing on the server. So if you see me in the lobby, feel free to propose me a game if you are interested in play testing. I am usally online around 06:00GMT on the week days.

Still I will make more proposals for changes

For the discussion on the banding upkeep, this was a alternative to the attack_only change. Changing the upkeep system now would probably weaken the creeps by too much. As krotop chose that one, let's see where it goes without looking back. I think that might create a potential problem when facing some WC heavy undead. I would think making the creeps immune to plague might be necessary.

On an another topic, I have some doubts on the dark egg. This unit is the meat of the meloen's army. Giving them charge is certainly a nice idea, and the resistances are nicely designed to make it work. However the 6MP + 1 potential from trait seems a bit too good. That fast basic units make the job of village grabbing, village stealing, zocing, healing, and levelling really easy. I am not sure if the theme of the faction requires such a speed on her basic fighter.

The second thought I have about the dark egg is linked to the fact that he got the charge special. The consequence is that, for exemple, he receives as much retaliation at night from a loyalist unit as that unit inflicts him at day on attack. That doesn't sound right to me. So I am coming with the following idea: why not giving the dark egg some other traits. As:
- hard (+10% of resistance against impact)
- thick (+10% of res. vs pierce)
- resistant (+10% of res vs blade)
This way, the thick egg who faces a spearman + cavalry will go for the spearman on attack (in order to use the max of res), while at day the loyalist would rather pick up the cav on that egg and rather spend the spearman on some hard/resistant one. These two attacks giving different damage amounts.

That would be a nice way to introduce some more tactics for the dark egg. I would also help reducing the speed of the eggs by making the quick trait impossible to get. As the resistant trait is the most useful (blade being the most present damage type), I would probably add some HP to the other ones. Like:
- hard (+10% of resistance against impact + 3 HP)
- thick (+10% of res. vs pierce + 1 HP)
- resistant (+10% of res vs blade)
What do you guys think ?
Enough talk, let's get some play test going now

[krotop]

About the creepers not getting plagued, I was planning to do that in the early days of creation, but because zom-bees didn't make much sense to me. The reason I didn't do it is that unplaguable isn't dissociable from unpoisonable and undrainable simply with the definition of the "undead", "mechanical" or whatever traits that makes your unit be "not-living". A workaround is possible though, if game balance requires it, something I am not sure about since the creepers have the possibility to escape or manoeuver the zombis thanks to their better movetype, and nightmares also have the spectre of death as an alternative to zombi spam.

About the egg's traits, I just love this idea. Firstly, it matches perfectly the historic and graphic design of the unit, which is always a plus. Secondly, as you said it could provide interesting gameplay and make the games vary a lot depending on the traits you get. Also, it gets rid of the standard traits that are, in my opinion too, not adapted to this unit. And finally it may, indeed, help to solve the problems that come with the charge/resist combo design and affirm more clearly its role in the faction.

A discussion with a few players brought arguments such as "on one hand the charge feat is very risky, and on the other hand the excellent resists of the egg makes him a great defender, it all encourages to play the unit for defense only". You brought up something similar to the 1st point FAAB, and it also has consequences on the 2 point. It might encourage defense if we give resist and hp bonuses, but enventually not if we make the traits ambivalent. That is to say, instead of giving the egg a +X% resist against pierce only, let's give +X% against pierce and -X% against impact and blade, so that you get an advantage when it's your turn to move, but creates an opening to your opponent when it's his turn.

The single problem I see, is that it could become a bit frustrating if you get too much of the same trait, and not adapted to the faction you face, such as massively getting +pierce and -blade/impact against northerners or +impact -blade/pierce against drakes. I don't know if it's possible to compel the traits to be alternative, and I'm not even sure it's desirable.

About the name, I think hard is not adapted to impact bonus. It should be the opposite since harder materials like diamond or crystal are more fragile to impact than, for instance, wood, metal or chewing gum. And "resistant" is a bit redundant and confusing with the term "resistance" of wesnoth's specific vocabulary.

So, here are the modifications I will make next friday unless someone disagrees (the traits might be too complicated I admit) :
+1 damage making the unit 5-3
30 base hps instead of the current 33hps
40 xps to level instead of 35, which becomes 28xps in the 70% standard multiplayer settings
no standard trait possible
1 trait possible among those you like in the following :
slippery : +10% vs pierce, -20% vs impact -10% vs blade +2 hps +1hp/level
flexible : +20% vs impact, -10% vs pierce -10% vs blade +3 hps +2hps/level
thick : +10% vs blade, -20% vs impact -10% vs pierce +1 hps +1hp/level
hard : +10% vs blade +10% vs pierce, -40% vs impact
or any you would find good to implement.

Edit:

If you start following my suggestions, this faction will turn quickly into the nightmares of krotop

Reminds me of a catch phrase I once thought to write on the server, in order to advertise and get people playing for the faction
"The nightmares of Meloen : your new reason to reduce your sleeping time"

[FAAB]

That is to say, instead of giving the egg a +X% resist against pierce only, let's give +X% against pierce and -X% against impact and blade, so that you get an advantage when it's your turn to move, but creates an opening to your opponent when it's his turn.

NIcelly put, yeah that the idea.

So, here are the modifications I will make next friday unless someone disagrees (the traits might be too complicated I admit) :
[...]
1 trait possible among those you like in the following :
slippery : +10% vs pierce, -20% vs impact -10% vs blade +2 hps +1hp/level
flexible : +20% vs impact, -10% vs pierce -10% vs blade +3 hps +2hps/level
thick : +10% vs blade, -20% vs impact -10% vs pierce +1 hps +1hp/level
hard : +10% vs blade +10% vs pierce, -40% vs impact
or any you would find good to implement.

Yeah, that seems a bit confusing for a trait. But you can go this way. I would think rather go simple first and get more complex if needed. Meloen's balancing is just starting afterall.
On the numbers, two comments:
. it seems there are more - than +, making the trait detrimental.
. -40% on impact I would hate to get that one.

Reminds me of a catch phrase I once thought to write on the server, in order to advertise and get people playing for the faction
"The nightmares of Meloen : your new reason to reduce your sleeping time"

I am not there yet

[JW]

Hey, I wanted to say that I've recently downloaded this faction and intend to personally check it out relatively soon.

[krotop]

. it seems there are more - than +, making the trait detrimental.
. -40% on impact I would hate to get that one.

That is a matter of perspective, I could also lower all resistance and then make only +X% resist only with trait :
impact resist starts with 0%
pierce starts with 30%
blade starts with 30%

slippery -> +20% vs pierce +2 hps +1hp/level
flexible -> +30% vs impact +3 hps +2hps/level
thick -> +20% vs blade +1 hps +1hp/level
hard -> +20% vs blade +20% vs pierce, -20% vs impact

The reason I want to alter more the impact resist is mathematical. The damage multiplier is less influenced when the resistance is low. But 40% was a bit too much maybe, yes. That meant +44% damages received on impact and -20% received on pierce and blade compared to a "no trait" egg.

Hey, I wanted to say that I've recently downloaded this faction and intend to personally check it out relatively soon.

Be my guest

[F8 Binds...]

For the sake of simplicity, I think it might be wise to do this:

Slippery- +20% vs pierce, +2hp / 1hp per level
Flexible- +20% vs impact, +2hp / 1hp per level
Thick- +20% vs blade, +2hp / 1hp per level
Hard- +20% vs blade / pierce, -20% vs impact.

I was just thinking that this would clean your ideas up- I think keeping things at basic numbers (any changes to resistances are 20%, for instance) and that all the hp bonuses are +2hp / 1hp per level makes more sense to me.

Now, perhaps there is incentive to the other numbers you had, and really you can take from this idea as you like. I've not exactly tested your faction, but this I think is a good idea to make the traits for your eggs a bit more simplistic.

Just my 0.02$.