[Gameplay] Alpha 18 Balance Feedback

[zzippy]

Now with capture system, everyone can have one.

...how this? In that svn I play, you can only train your own units from captured barracks. Maybe you play some other game?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Yoddha warriors should be like suicide unit. Charge 20 into enemy buildings and destroy 1 or 2 crucial building, but they themselves die then easy.

[ba7rain]

Yoddha warriors should be like suicide unit. Charge 20 into enemy buildings and destroy 1 or 2 crucial building, but they themselves die then easy.

yes we weren't disputing that fact.... destroy 3-4 crucial buildings more like... even with a heavily towered and defended CC. Before Lion or someone else raises the fact that they are akin to siege weapons therefore towers are not the option...at least there is some credibility to a battering rams' armour since its a wooden shell. But these ultimately are humans. Towers are to defend against humans. If anything, dont nerf their damage, but reduce their armour. Its not necessarily about being realistic, but about being proportionate.

Also, since the game still needs work with balancing, i really wonder whether the addition of capturing should be added in the next release as that will definitely have a huge toll on the balancing. A priority must be set, and until it has not been completed it has to be dealt with.

@: Alekusu and Bouke:

Thank you very very much for having the time to provide evidence to my statements

Lion, you say that stonethrowers aren't OP cause in the new alpha you will be able to capture them, a thing that isn't tested online by the major community, and later you ask for proofs regarding mauryans macemans. Isn't contradictory? BTW mauryans have elephants too, that can deal a nice siege damage.

As I said some time before, I don't like rams right now (I know that the high damage against units it's for pathfinding purpouses). But today I found a very good counter: women! They are better than spearmen to destroy them. Just pointing out, I don't have a opinion against or in support.

This!! Exactly took the words out of my mouth.

Lion, in order to see our opinions and understand them as well as be heavily involved in the game it is vital you find a way to get online! It is the only environment that allows to gauge for balance and feedback, and to be perfectly honest; online play is very likely to be the essence of this game to players.

Lastly, when i said stonethrowers, i meant slingmen, sorry to create any misunderstandings. Although as someone said its about knowing which units to counter.

Edited April 28, 2015 by ba7rain

[ba7rain]

he presents the evidence.

It is supposed to be the job of the creators or anyone involved in the making of this game to seek for evidence if many people bring up the statement. It is not the responsibility of the players. Although the latter is always helpful im sure

[RoekeloosNL]

It is supposed to be the job of the creators or anyone involved in the making of this game to seek for evidence if many people bring up the statement. It is not the responsibility of the players. Although the latter is always helpful im sure

Well when you want to make a point about something its always nice to have some evidence to support it and the devs already have alot of work and not always the time to look for the problems and always need the help from the players. Mostly Devs dont even play the game as mutch as the players so don't have the time to test everything.

[ba7rain]

Well when you want to make a point about something its always nice to have some evidence to support it and the devs already have alot of work and not always the time to look for the problems and always need the help from the players. Mostly Devs dont even play the game as mutch as the players so don't have the time to test everything.

I understand that completely... but apparently members have been dedicated to work on certain things such as balancing...and its been unbalanced for the past 2/3 alphas. But fair enough, the point on providing evidence does help...

[sanderd17]

I understand that completely... but apparently members have been dedicated to work on certain things such as balancing...and its been unbalanced for the past 2/3 alphas. But fair enough, the point on providing evidence does help...

That's for two reasons:

1. Overshooting a balance task. Quite often, a balancer focuses on something that's OP or UP, and fixes that, but goes too far with it, and doesn't have time to investigate new strategies (that should still work, but that shouldn't always work).

2. Adding new features. Every feature added and even some bug fixes (like fixing the infinite chase issue) severely changes the balancing of the game. A19 won't be balanced very well either, as building capturing is completely new (and that determines gameplay for a big deal). It's hard for us to come up with a lot of new strategies, and compare them to each other to see which ones are OP or UP.

[ba7rain]

That's for two reasons:

1. Overshooting a balance task. Quite often, a balancer focuses on something that's OP or UP, and fixes that, but goes too far with it, and doesn't have time to investigate new strategies (that should still work, but that shouldn't always work).

2. Adding new features. Every feature added and even some bug fixes (like fixing the infinite chase issue) severely changes the balancing of the game. A19 won't be balanced very well either, as building capturing is completely new (and that determines gameplay for a big deal). It's hard for us to come up with a lot of new strategies, and compare them to each other to see which ones are OP or UP.

This offers great insight. I just hope that our opinions, where and when appropriate, are taken into some form of consideration

[Lion.Kanzen]

It is supposed to be the job of the creators or anyone involved in the making of this game to seek for evidence if many people bring up the statement. It is not the responsibility of the players. Although the latter is always helpful im sure

Is a open source project made with the help of crowd, we are alpha testers, you notice the game are in alpha? So the game are made by all us. For the developers is not like a job, they don't get a paid for this, so the " responsibility" is of all who care the project.

[ba7rain]

Is a open source project made with the help of crowd, we are alpha testers, you notice the game are in alpha? So the game are made by all us. For the developers is not like a job, they don't get a paid for this, so the " responsibility" is of all who care the project.

Then i take my comment back.

[ba7rain]

But to get back on the complaint, will something be done about these mauryan warriors? I just got destroyed by 30 of them in a game within five minutes and i have huge defenses including pierce and hack units, only to see that their high armour (60+ for almost everything) make it seem like i was tickling them... its getting increasingly frustrating to play this game if someone uses mauryans...

This will be the last post on the matter from me as i do not want to saturate this sub.

Edited April 29, 2015 by ba7rain

[sanderd17]

The Mauryan warriors should be rather good against buildings (as elephants are only partially siege units, and supposed to be worse against buildings than f.e. rams).

But with building capturing in, the whole thing around attacking buildings has to be revised.

So it could be possible that we make the warriors have a very strong capture attack, or that they don't have a capture attack, and keep their strong crush damage.

But in both cases, they need to be revised in some way.

[Farawyn]

Why the Mauryan elephant archer only have 100 of health ??

[Prodigal Son]

Why the Mauryan elephant archer only have 100 of health ??

It seems that for now it's an exact copy (stat-wise) of the regular cavalry archer for balance reasons.

[Lion.Kanzen]

It seems that for now it's an exact copy (stat-wise) of the regular cavalry archer for balance reasons.

I think the same , but don't be in this way Edited May 13, 2015 by Lion.Kanzen

[Farawyn]

After a few multiplayer matches, IMO the Persians soldiers don't have enough damage. The chariots do not do more damage than basics archers.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Farawyn

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Why should the chariots do more damage though?

[RoekeloosNL]

Probably because they fire from a moving object? and maybe then arrows hit there target with a higher velocity "result harder impact" But if something like that gets changes then there sould also be changes to there hit radius when they are moving so not every arrow is a hit, And sould done to all moving units: cav,chariots,ect. And then when a unit also gets promotions the units get a little beter overall but not OP.

[Farawyn]

Probably because they fire from a moving object? and maybe then arrows hit there target with a higher velocity "result harder impact" But if something like that gets changes then there sould also be changes to there hit radius when they are moving so not every arrow is a hit, And sould done to all moving units: cav,chariots,ect. And then when a unit also gets promotions the units get a little beter overall but not OP.

+1

[leper]

+1

You do know that there is a +1 button on each post? Also full-quoting the previous post is something you should avoid.

[Farawyn]

The archers of the Athenians surpass everyone. The tempo of their attack is too fast.

You do know that there is a +1 button on each post? Also full-quoting the previous post is something you should avoid.

there

[scythetwirler]

Some suggestions committed to SVN (see first post).

• Ranged unit damage nerf (lesser nerf for skirmishers). Landed in r16759.
• Mauryan Champion Swordsman damage nerf. Landed in r16760.
• Decrease Crush Armor for female citizens. Landed in r16757.
• Decrease HP of female citizens. Landed in r16757.
• Decrease peacock HP. Landed in r16757.
• Reduce phasing costs and phasing time. Landed in r16758.
• Increase fortress cost and build time. Landed in r16760.

Other Alpha 18 issues can be continued in this thread, but discussion about these changes should migrate to thread for SVN testing feedback.

[Dezzi]

Some suggestions committed to SVN (see first post).

• Ranged unit damage nerf (lesser nerf for skirmishers). Landed in r16759.
• Mauryan Champion Swordsman damage nerf. Landed in r16760.
• Decrease Crush Armor for female citizens. Landed in r16757.
• Decrease HP of female citizens. Landed in r16757.
• Decrease peacock HP. Landed in r16757.
• Reduce phasing costs and phasing time. Landed in r16758.
• Increase fortress cost and build time. Landed in r16760.

Other Alpha 18 issues can be continued in this thread, but discussion about these changes should migrate to thread for SVN testing feedback.

I personally have some suggestions and disagree with some of the above but also agree with some things that has already been mentioned.

Here is my list:

1. Make chariots (especially britons) have more attack or defence as they die too easily and are darn expensive lol.

2. Forts I feel don't need their health increase as they are strong enough to withstand an attack from the enemy if they are backed up by and army (which is how it should be).

3. Make forts not gain land when built as people just "fort their way to victory" and they emphasis should be on army's for attacking not buildings.

4. I also feel that the phase time should be longer as what's the point of phase 1 and 2? since most people just quickly go to phase 3 without any considerable consequence? (time wise). This will also help barb factions.

5. Maybe increase the pop for the siege weapons to prevent siege weapon spam? this is just an idea I had since realistically you couldn't field an 100 catapults

Edited August 6, 2015 by Dezzi

[av93]

I know that there's a new approach in the way, but with the current gameplay

5 cav swordman vs 5 champion archers... 5 cav dies, 4 archers champion left.
Also, the crush damage of slingers are a bit powerful I think.

[greenknight32]

Love them slingers! Yeah,I agree, they're a bit OP.