New counter system

[Peregriino]

Hi for all, I open this thread for discuss about the new counter system. In the new system the players need see your units status and make your choices, correct?

For exemple, my enimy units are weak for hack damage, I go and use swordsman to counter.

But in some games ago I have problem with it.

My enemy used a large produccion of ranged infantary units, I make cav melee to counter them, but I lost my cav. I think that: I use few cav.

But today I play again. I make some cav melee, 11, and try to attack my enemy. Probably he had 10 ranged infantary units, no towers or upgrades or CC, we are in early game. And my cav melee were annihilated in seconds.

I hear somethins about persians chariots, without counter is hard to counter them.

What do you think?

[wolflance]

I think some sort of hard counter system is good...so long as it is logical and implemented well.

[Peregriino]

Agree, but it's not function.

Cav melee is counter by Spearman with pircing damage, Cav Melee have a weak armour for pircing damage.

But the problem is: ranger units have pircing damage too.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

The alpha 17 changes really are very very bad. Removing hard counters was a mistake and there are numerous bad decisions like the one pointed out in this thread. Spearmen get pierce attack, and to make them counter cavalry cavalry must have low pierce armor, right? But ranged units have pierce attack too. Ranged units are supposed to be countered by cavalry, but instead slaughter cavalry like hot knife through butter. And then you have a basic unit like swordsman who costs 3 different resources, food, wood, and iron. You have champion units (see Seleucid silver shield for example) who cost HUGE amounts of 3 resources too. You will have post after post of people trying to defend their decisions (the balancing branch people who basically have thrown the game's design into disarray), so it is very clear that they do not intend to change direction. It is good to experiment, but you should know when the experiment is a failure. The truth is the game's health just now relies on modding to fix game's balance.

Edited December 1, 2014 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

The alpha 17 changes really are very very bad. Removing hard counters was a mistake and there are numerous bad decisions like the one pointed out in this thread. Spearmen get pierce attack, and to make them counter cavalry cavalry must have low pierce armor, right? But ranged units have pierce attack too. Ranged units are supposed to be countered by cavalry, but instead slaughter cavalry like hot knife through butter. And then you have a basic unit like swordsman who costs 3 different resources, food, wood, and iron. You have champion units (see Seleucid silver shield for example) who cost HUGE amounts of 3 resources too. You will have post after post of people trying to defend their decisions (the balancing branch people who basically have thrown the game's design into disarray), so it is very clear that they do not intend to change direction. It is good to experiment, but you should know when the experiment is a failure. The truth is the game's health just now relies on modding to fix game's balance.

I would like to turn your attention to the "Combat Dilemma" thread. This was started by me because of imbalances and lack of realism in the game at the time with the hard counters. I basically broke down the units in their purposes with the hard counters and showed the problems they had. While a soft counter system may not be optimal, with adjustments it can improve.

[niektb]

For the record:

http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18595

It was BTW a very nice read, Thorfinn.

In case you're interested wowverylongname, Mythos made a rebalance after the criticism on Alpha 16 (but also after he retired) that should be somewhere around in a Github branch. highlights of the changes: http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18870&p=297049%C2'>

[iNcog]

I'm pretty sure that the current state of things in A17 is mostly OK.

I could be wrong? It was also my impression that it was decided to give all melee units hack attack, all ranged units pierce attack and all siege units crush.

I'm unsure of how counters currently work as of right now, though it might perhaps be true that ranged units are a bit too good. Mind you, I have bigger problems with buildings in this game.

link

in that game I had, my cavalry units did quite well i feel, then again those are swords cav and perhaps not spear cavalry

[niektb]

It's funny that you say that archers beat melee cav. A while ago wriatti wrote a template analyzing tool, here are the results of the current svn:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/goida2xwceajdos/unit_summary_table.html?dl=0

It shows that melee cav are actually OP (they're the unit type that often is countered the least).

Also I just tested and I see that 10 Sword Cavs make quick work of 10 infantry archers.

Edited December 2, 2014 by niektb

[wolflance]

Here's what I had in my mind (for a proposed hard counter, anyway)

Melee Unit

Swordsman > Spearman > Cavalry > Swordsman

Ranged Unit

Ranged Unit does not counter anything, and not countered by anything. Has lowish hp.

Slinger : Long Range, Slow Attack, Most Damage, Least Accurate.

Archer: Mid Range, Normal Attack, Low Damage, Most Accurate

Skirmisher: Short Range, Fast Attack, Mid Damage, Normal Accuracy.

Elephant

Ranged Unit > Melee Elephant > Melee unit

Siege Weapon

Siege tower does not counter anything, and not countered by anything.

Any melee unit > Battering ram + Stone thrower > Building

Any melee unit > Bolt shooter > Any non-siege unit

* For the purpose of hard counter, treat siege weapon and naval unit as building.

[niektb]

In fact hard counters were removed in Alpha 17 after it was deciced (with a good discussion) that a soft counter system is easier to balance (dunno which topic)

[zzippy]

The alpha 17 changes really are very very bad ... numerous bad decisions ... balancing branch people who basically have thrown the game's design into disarray ... should know when the experiment is a failure ... truth is the game's health just now relies on modding to fix game's balance.

If you say so, it will be true. I mean, you really are in a position to judge this, since you are an experienced game designer and for sure a pretty good player too.

Otherwise your statements would be impudence at its best, and a moderator would jump in here.

Get real, man. Most of the good players will subscribe that a17 is much better than a16.

Edited December 2, 2014 by zzippy

[tau]

I don't have any strong opinion on melee cav stats yet, but:

A while ago wriatti wrote a template analyzing tool, here are the results of the current svn:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/goida2xwceajdos/unit_summary_table.html?dl=0

It shows that melee cav are actually OP (they're the unit type that often is countered the least).

Does this tool take into account the initial distance between troops, when ranged are involved, and how?

Also I just tested and I see that 10 Sword Cavs make quick work of 10 infantry archers.

Why test this 10 vs 10? Sword cav is available in phase2 and costs metal, while archers can be massed since phase1 and are likely to have range improvement by phase2.

I make some cav melee, 11, and try to attack my enemy. Probably he had 10 ranged infantary units, no towers or upgrades or CC, we are in early game. And my cav melee were annihilated in seconds.

Could you provide more details? (because real game battles are always more than a number of this vs a number of that.) Didn't you give them an order to attack a most distant troop or smth like this? Did any of you micro? When enemy troops noticed you and started to shoot? Wasn't this a situation when your cav moves to an end point in a form of a long row, being killed one by one?

[niektb]

Why test this 10 vs 10? Sword cav is available in phase2 and costs metal, while archers can be massed since phase1 and are likely to have range improvement by phase2.

Because Peregriino said he had about 10 melee cavs against about 10 ranged infantry

[tau]

Because Peregriino said he had about 10 melee cavs against about 10 ranged infantry

Well this was my first guess but later i noticed Incog's post about sword cav and thought you replied to him. Anyway then, i guess Peregrino told about (Roman) spear cav which has somewhat different stats. Not that i think it would alter testing results very much, but for the sake of integrity.

[niektb]

This is BTW necessary to read the upper table pleasantly:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ud8omq67dpoebp/style.css?dl=0

[av93]

It's funny that you say that archers beat melee cav. A while ago wriatti wrote a template analyzing tool, here are the results of the current svn:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/goida2xwceajdos/unit_summary_table.html?dl=0

It shows that melee cav are actually OP (they're the unit type that often is countered the least).

What alpha is it this analysis? I think it's old cause doesn't appear ptolomies and seleucids.

Like Tau said, there's a lot of factors. Due pathfinding, melee troops tend to mess around. It's impossible to judge a performance of a kind of unit only by stats.

Edited December 2, 2014 by av93

[niektb]

I generated that analysis this morning on SVN, but I indeed see the script excluded the Ptol and the Sele.

And sure, It doesn't give a definite answer but an indication.

Edited December 2, 2014 by niektb

[tau]

@niektb: saw nothing new in that table, and again, i don't think this change would significantly alter the results; on the contrary, i believe that spear cav would do as well as sword cav in your test with all other things being equal. Just accurate conditions is what makes a test a test, leaving less room for speculations.

[Peregriino]

Sorry guys, but my last month in college was pretty hard. My english is not the best, but I try answer all.

@Thronfin

I read your topic. I think the same, but I don't know if that problem are solution in a17. I have my questions about. I see in my matchs the people using mass ranged units. They used few melee units.

@Tau

I used accurately 11 roman's melee cav. I think my oponent used 10 or very close this roman's ranged units. I click to attack the units and I try to make some micro like Incog in your video. The great problem was not lost my cav, but the speed. It was very fast, in seconds my cavs were deads. But can be a good micro of my oponent, but I think this is a good discussion because the ranged units yet have.

My opinion: I like the new system, but I think the problem continues. The ranged units have a great advantage in the field, I see players using only ranged units for the entire match. I do it, I know how it works, but would like to see more balanced matches between melee and ranged units. I see more numbers than strategy often. My idea is to create a penalty for ranged units when they are close attack for melee units, I think it would change things a bit.

[zzippy]

.. see players using only ranged units for the entire match.

Probably not the best players ..

My idea is to create a penalty for ranged units when they are close attack for melee units, I think it would change things a bit.

In current a18 balancing branch ranged cavs automicro is disabled. This should help a lot..

[Peregriino]

Probably not the best players ..

In current a18 balancing branch ranged cavs automicro is disabled. This should help a lot..

Is a good player use one thing that not working? The players just adapt the game. If the ranged units are more strong, the players are using the ranged units. When that situation change the players wil change, and I think is not a question of bad players.

This change will be a great change, but don't solve problem of ranged units.

@On topic

I forgoten. In other topic Incog talk about the problem of players just are using units by cost/benefit. I think maybe it's happen. It's more difficult see, but at moment I use this. In a16 if a mass of ranged units attack me I used melee cav, but now I just use anything, probably other mass of ranged units. I don't use swordmen, I just use roman's pikemans and use the iron for others things like upgrades.

[tau]

My idea is to create a penalty for ranged units when they are close attack for melee units, I think it would change things a bit.

I think this is early to do fine tuning for ranged vs melee before formations are back (if this is planned for the next version). Currently, if a group of melee is to approach a group of ranged from far away, a melee group strings out and can't attack 'simultaneously' while ranged can. This problem is more visible with bigger numbers of troops and larger distances, so may be irrelevant to the situation described in the original post. However my point is that weakening ranged now may result in op melee after formations are brought back.

[Peregriino]

Yes, I agree with you. Maybe we need wait =)

[Lion.Kanzen]

The formations is Planning to back , even there are a patch to toggle formations on/off ( null formation)

We must wait the review by the team.

[Peregriino]

New informations, maybe not so new.

In video INcog used swordman cav. and I used spearmen cav. The status both are similar, but the speed difference is yelling. If I remeber the swordmen cav is 0.75 or 1 and the spearmen cav is 2.25. It's a great difference.

10 spearmen cav against 10 ranged infantary without micro, problaly the spearmen cav will win. But with micro I'm not so sure.

And without hard counter, against persian's chariots if think the spearmen cav. will lost.

I'm not experience like someone here, but I think will be test.