Desired gameplay(planned) features for A23

[Stan`]

You guys could also play on SVN and report these things before the release. That's also why we have release candidates.

Yeah not much people on SVN but I'm sure you could sort this out

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

About cav, in DE you can only train 2 Cavalry Scouts in the first phase [a new unit not available in Public mod]. They are good at scouting, as their name implies, and they're also good for hunting. Their small number makes the player choose what to do with them. Scout or Hunt, or split their tasks between the two? They are not good fighters at all, wielding only knives in most cases [a bamboo spear for Indians, but still the same attack stats]. In phase 2, cav restriction is lifted, but cavalry take 20 seconds to train instead of Public mod's 12 seconds. To unlock the Levy Cavalry tech, you have to build a Corral first, and then you can research the tech to reduce cavalry train time. In DE, cavalry are also generally slower than in Public mod, by about 15%, so they're not flying around the map raiding the Hell out of everybody.

Edited January 17, 2018 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[av93]

Well, I tried to make some suggestions here. Maybe if we want to discus more, we should keep clean this topic of a debate that have been talked before

 

 

 

[elexis]

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

you can only train 2 Cavalry Scouts

Using the entity limits? Then one can train more than 2, but at most 2 simultaneously. Not a bad idea, but maybe this unit could remain useful in the later ages as well.

Maybe if the global vision & attack range reduction would be implemented for all units except the scouts. Might be a desired feature for alpha 24. (Same as counters in my view :-/)

For alpha 23 I'd rather nerf the skirmisher cavalry accuracy and be done with it. If we add anything else, I'm sure the balancing will break even much further in some unforseen way than only one random unit being OP.

[Stan`]

Something something testing

[Feldfeld]

A simple accuracy nerf for both skirmisher cavalry AND archer cavalry (we shouldn't forget them) can be enough, or we could try some more complex changes suggested by others.

I think that with enough testing we can make sure that one unit can't be OP in next alpha. Actually, before alpha 22 was released it was warned that with current balancing skirmisher cavalry would be OP. And, i don't remember why, but i didn't even test it on SVN with other people (i just played a bit in singleplayer SVN before stating skirmisher cavalry would be OP). I don't know if other people tried it in SVN  with other people, but I think that with more testing this alpha could be better balanced.

And i actually think that people are overestimating rushing power. Against borg, i may have the best hunt in the world, i would still be unable to hit his wood even if he almost haven't made any cav. The best i could achieve is make his farming women garrison (which is quite good, but is it enough ?). The reason is that he can train more soldiers on wood, with britons, because slingers are cheap in early game (otherwise it may be impossible to counter cavalry raid atm). I don't really see the point of forbidding cav in multiplayer games, sometimes i happen to play without training cav even if it is allowed, and still get excellent results. So i think nerf should be slight.

Also, not to mention, cavalry is weaker in some more closed map than mainland (which is almost played everytime). If there is water between teams, you can boom without cav and then try an infantry army composition. In nomad, both raiding with cav or booming without are very viable strategies, i'd call them quite balanced on this map. Generally, a CC is built close to wood so you can garrison wood gatherer, which reduces raids strength. 

[Guest]

Quote

There are usually balance issues in any given major release.  Then it takes until the next release to fix them, and meanwhile the release under development has its own balance issues that are barely tested due to few people playing svn.  What is needed is a faster turnaround time to change the balance in the current major release.  This could be achieved with an official "balance mod" that touches only XML/JS so it can be updated to every client within hours, without having to wait for the next major release.  Components of the system:

When you start pyrogenesis, it checks if you have the latest version of the "balance mod" from an official wildfiregames server.  If not, it will prompt you to download and install it if you choose, and then switch to that latest version of it.  So, you would have multiple balance mods installed, one for each version, and the latest would be active by default.  The balance mod would be a very small download since it only has to change stats on a few units, so it would not increase server load much.

The game list in the lobby will display a concise abbreviation of the mod(s) for that game.  B-3 for example could be the 3rd version of the balance mod within the current release.

When you try to join a game with a mod that's not currently active, and you already have the mod, it will ask you if you want to switch to that mod.  If you do, pyrogenesis will restart with the mod active, and join the game.

That has the added benefit of laying the foundation for additional content like maps, mods.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Guest
avoid confusion

[Nescio]

5 hours ago, stanislas69 said:

You guys could also play on SVN and report these things before the release. That's also why we have release candidates.

Yeah not much people on SVN but I'm sure you could sort this out

If people really cared to make the next alpha version balanced then this is the way to go.

[av93]

Why not a step between "balance mod" of before, and the current SVN system?: why don't release in 2 phases: an alpha 22 release candidate, 1 month of gameplay testing for everyone, and then an alpha 22 "stable".

Edited January 17, 2018 by av93

[Stan`]

30 minutes ago, Nescio said:

If people really cared to make the next alpha version balanced then this is the way to go.

I care. Also I think we do care not releasing a broken game. It's just we are a small team and we prefer investing time in content rather than in playing. But that just means we need some help not that we don't care. When I proposed the staff matches a bit ago that was an improvement. But none of us have the time to be the best lobby players and therefore know how to properly test multiplayer.

Also we are trying to reach the point when it makes more sense to balance the game (aka beta) In the meantime all the help is welcome.

12 minutes ago, av93 said:

Why not a step between "balance mod" of before, and the current SVN system?: why don't release in 2 phases: an alpha 22 release candidate, 1 month of gameplay testing for everyone, and then an alpha 22 "stable".

Well technically there is some time between feature freeze and the actual release (and that can take a month)  so people can actually download the RC ( Whether its properly advertised is another matter) and make their feedback constructively on the forums.

[av93]

4 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

Well technically there is some time between feature freeze and the actual release (and that can take a month)  so people can actually download the RC ( Whether its properly advertised is another matter) and make their feedback constructively on the forums.

Then advertise it the next one time

[Nescio]

17 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

I care. Also I think we do care not releasing a broken game.

Re-reading my post I think I should have emphasized the “really”. I certainly did not intend to imply the team does not care about balance. I fully realize time is limited and the team can't do everything.

My point was to underline that if multiplayer-players really want a balanced game, they should frequently play-test the newest development version. The only way to convince others to tweak something is by providing evidence, e.g. a large number of test games with the current values. Forum proposals and one-game examples are occassionally useful but generally insufficient.

 

[Grugnas]

"nerf skirmisher cavalry" is  too generic statement because it doesn't even describe the reason behind and in which situation it may have sense.

If you are of the opinion that nerfing skirmish cavalry will make us happy, please refrain. Skirmish cavalry is just a type of cavalry that took the place of spear cavalry after accuracy rework ( rework with consequent buff because laziness, i guess ). This means that by nerfing accuracy of skirmish cavalry, spear cav will just take place again ( and personally i think that it is even harder to deal with in terms of eventual balance fixes).

8 hours ago, stanislas69 said:

You guys could also play on SVN and report these things before the release. That's also why we have release candidates.

Yeah not much people on SVN but I'm sure you could sort this out

I swear some people tried SVN and even reported such an issue to devs, but nothing has been done, especially when reviews are needed ( i can understand that, since it is not easy to pick an efficient and quick decision before the commit phase ending ). There isn't a subforum for SVN specific issues/tests ( i assume that the forum main goal is to communicate about current release and not SVN stuff which is development related ).

A balanced game would keep people interested to the game, especially when they play online and involve more people. Multiplayer "units abuse" can indeed be used against AI too, reason why i am pretty sure that AI behavior could benefit from emulating most used basic strategies, to keep at least a real-like experience when playing against players. I saw too many new players trying to imitate AI thus spreading man power in resources they didn't even need.

There are many mods and threads focused on balance already, still i can't recall a proper test ( obviously multiplayer games/tests play a relevant role in this and it is quite difficult to involve people into downloading extra content ) nor relevant feedback ( for relevant feedback I mean  multiplayer games where issues are quite evident ).

Edited January 17, 2018 by Grugnas

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 hours ago, elexis said:

Using the entity limits? Then one can train more than 2, but at most 2 simultaneously. Not a bad idea, but maybe this unit could remain useful in the later ages as well.

Cav limit, including scouts, is lifted in phase 2. Yeah the scouts remain useful in later stages especially on maps with good hunting.

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

About cav, in DE you can only train 2 Cavalry Scouts in the first phase [a new unit not available in Public mod]. They are good at scouting, as their name implies, and they're also good for hunting. Their small number makes the player choose what to do with them. Scout or Hunt, or split their tasks between the two? They are not good fighters at all, wielding only knives in most cases [a bamboo spear for Indians, but still the same attack stats]. In phase 2, cav restriction is lifted, but cavalry take 20 seconds to train instead of Public mod's 12 seconds. To unlock the Levy Cavalry tech, you have to build a Corral first, and then you can research the tech to reduce cavalry train time. In DE, cavalry are also generally slower than in Public mod, by about 15%, so they're not flying around the map raiding the Hell out of everybody.

I  like they  feels like AoM scouts and have sense with early colony(village) stage

[Stan`]

3 hours ago, Nescio said:

Re-reading my post I think I should have emphasized the “really”. I certainly did not intend to imply the team does not care about balance. I fully realize time is limited and the team can't do everything.

My point was to underline that if multiplayer-players really want a balanced game, they should frequently play-test the newest development version. The only way to convince others to tweak something is by providing evidence, e.g. a large number of test games with the current values. Forum proposals and one-game examples are occassionally useful but generally insufficient.

 

Yeah testing svn is key.

1 hour ago, Grugnas said:

I swear some people tried SVN and even reported such an issue to devs, but nothing has been done, especially when reviews are needed ( i can understand that, since it is not easy to pick an efficient and quick decision before the commit phase ending ). There isn't a subforum for SVN specific issues/tests ( i assume that the forum main goal is to communicate about current release and not SVN stuff which is development related ).

A balanced game would keep people interested to the game, especially when they play online and involve more people. Multiplayer "units abuse" can indeed be used against AI too, reason why i am pretty sure that AI behavior could benefit from emulating most used basic strategies, to keep at least a real-like experience when playing against players. I saw too many new players trying to imitate AI thus spreading man power in resources they didn't even need.

There are many mods and threads focused on balance already, still i can't recall a proper test ( obviously multiplayer games/tests play a relevant role in this and it is quite difficult to involve people into downloading extra content ) nor relevant feedback ( for relevant feedback I mean  multiplayer games where issues are quite evident ).

I won't say more about it but let's say content sharing might become a bit easier in the future.

We do lack someone with commit access that is dedicated to balancing though I think @Yves wanted to work on that @LordGood also wanted to give it a go.

We can't just recruit someone on the forums though. We don't have a balancing department though it might fall into the programming part which is already crawling under work I don't think elexis sleeps anymore.

To recruit someone we need someone with experience but also someone we can trust and someone for whom we can attest such competence. Which is the hardest part. Once that person is found it should go well. But when and who are questions I really wish I had answers too.

About gameplay mods I'm not even sure you guys test each other mods. 

[Grugnas]

of course we did ( at least me and barca tried out each other mods and DE in multiplayer ), it requires more time to convince relevant people about stuff they don't do than convince habituè people to do something different.

The balance task isn't as long as you think if you don't introduce any new stuff ( which goes off topic ).

[Stan`]

I can split the last few posts. How should I call that thread though ?

Did you guys manage to agree on each other's changes ?

[Grugnas]

if we'd agreed, there would be 1 mod only.

I will just say that in monkey wrench mod there is a limit to 1 cavalry only extended by barracks construction ( which will be stables instead, whenever they will be implemented ) and different approaches to cavalry stats dilemma.

[Stan`]

@Grugnas yeah that makes sense. 

[Nescio]

1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:

Yeah testing svn is key.

I won't say more about it but let's say content sharing might become a bit easier in the future.

We do lack someone with commit access that is dedicated to balancing though I think @Yves wanted to work on that @LordGood also wanted to give it a go.

We can't just recruit someone on the forums though. We don't have a balancing department though it might fall into the programming part which is already crawling under work I don't think elexis sleeps anymore.

To recruit someone we need someone with experience but also someone we can trust and someone for whom we can attest such competence. Which is the hardest part. Once that person is found it should go well. But when and who are questions I really wish I had answers too.

About gameplay mods I'm not even sure you guys test each other mods. 

Getting consensus is the hardest part. The reason there are several mods is because different people have different opinions, which is perfectly fine. I've briefly tried out DE, MW, VP, and HC, in single-player, and subsequently deleted them. Multiplayer I've never played, because I'm not really interested, nor have enough time for it.

The perfect person to do the balancing should have plenty of time (that disqualifies the team, who are already busy with other, more important things), have no opinion of his own (that disqualifies anyone who created a mod or complains on the forum), is patient, reliable, and able to force through decisions if there is no consensus. I'm sceptical such a person will show up.

[temple]

We shouldn't forget about infantry skirmishers either. In the no-cav games we find out that archers usually don't stand a chance against them.

[av93]

Maybe developers could do a document with the defined role of every unit that have in mind could help. I tried it with this topic here (with some personal ideas, but without deviating too much from the design that it's hinted in-game). Right now we only have the wikia outdated docs, that were designed with hard counters in mind. Then the balance adjusting could be done trying to fit their role.

I won't make any suggestion (there're plenty on the forum), but It should be clear why train spearmen over pikemen, or how to counter cavalry skirmishers.

The design objectives (IMHO) : all units should be useful, even if some of them are a little more situational than others. All strategies should be able to be countered. All civs should have more than one viable strategy, even if they have holes in the tech tree and they perform better in some ways.

[Servo]

I’m sure lots of good players (pro) should help with svn test. But there were so many testing, analysis and mods that really are good basis in balancing. 

I second Gugnas opinion on not really nerfing the skirm cavs which was my point to b4 that you don’t need to fix or change something that’s working very well. Hannibal Barca tweaked the melee cavalry on his mod and to me just fine countering the skirm cavs. User1 fixed the wild animal lure. There are more on DE, monkey wrench and 0abc mods that are really worth considering too!

I’ve been playing all 4 mods heavily before on single player and imo are really good mods for MP. The only problem is on SP in which the AI behaves less interesting.

i recently tried vanilla A22 on SP and to my surprise the AI is really really good and challenging than A21. Their invasion force is really massive! If the melee cavs have good animation with rate at between 1 to 2 seconds I won’t go back to playing MP for awhile. I set my game on Gallic fields (I hope this map is much bigger)which is really a nice map and Gaia units spamming. AI massed more than a hundred units with around 50 regular cavs, more than 50 citizen soldiers, more or less 20 each foot and mounted champs and 4-5 rams and hero. 3 players and pops at almost 300 each and the game is still fine. The game was pretty except the melee cavalry attack rate at 3 seconds and the Gaia unit promotion which upgraded the abilities but the HP diminished from 200 to 140. 

If this AI behavior is present on mods like Vox, 0abc, DE etc the game is going to be really nice on SP.

My little review of the game:

1. Single player is fine but needs better animation and pathfinding  . SP doesn’t need balancing as more AI and hardest opponent is the name of the game.

2. Multiplayer is ok but easy unit spam is killing the game. 

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Servo

[Grugnas]

1 hour ago, temple said:

We shouldn't forget about infantry skirmishers either. In the no-cav games we find out that archers usually don't stand a chance against them.

this is true, is it worth considering a bonus for archers against skirmishers?

In the current status having archers being able to target back lines using their attack distance as advantage doesn't prevent skirmishers to be effective against melee in front lanes especially with few units absorbing some damage because of their high damage.