Jump to content

How fruitful are the balancing discussions?


LetswaveaBook
 Share

Recommended Posts

  

6 hours ago, Stan` said:

So it would be impossible to add any meaningful change to the meta or the gameplay. Which means we could stop developing the game and call it finished?

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

No. It means we should either release more often (sounds like that isn't possible) or space out these big feature changes across different releases. 

4 hours ago, maroder said:

Sure it is harder to balance and keep track of stuff, but slowing development down even further seems like a very bad trade-off.

The overarching point here this slow and steady approach is actually faster. Trying to do everything all at once just doesn't work. It's not just harder--it's impossible. It jams everything together and essentially makes a whole new game every alpha. As a result, we're really just guessing what all the values should be because there are too many variables all at once. The only reason why it kind of worked for a25 (which mind you took two alphas and a couple of years but still isn't perfect) is because we basically worked backwards from a23 and a24 and did relatively small changes. This is why I say we should be modest in our approach. For example, a26 seems like it will essentially just add acceleration/turn times, which will allow us to fine tune the feature instead of guessing its values while simultaneously guessing what the values should be for another 10 features.  

 

5 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

14 is too much. Also I prefer 1v1s, but playing a team game would be fine too.

 

I played way more than 14 games for a25. Yet here we are. This isn't easy. And we can't just look at unit cost like you suggest. It is multiple variables cost/stats. Cost and stats themselves are made up of multiple values (i.e., wood, metal, hack armour, hack attack, health, etc.). The issue is less that merc cav is good or that merc cav is cheap than it is good AND cheap AND easy to get AND that in the context of a25 these factors made them OP. And like Diz already said, this wasn't discovered "immediately" because this is basically the same as a24 when no one used.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

 

I played way more than 14 games for a25. Yet here we are. This isn't easy. And we can't just look at unit cost like you suggest. It is multiple variables cost/stats. Cost and stats themselves are made up of multiple values (i.e., wood, metal, hack armour, hack attack, health, etc.). The issue is less that merc cav is good or that merc cav is cheap than it is good AND cheap AND easy to get AND that in the context of a25 these factors made them OP. And like Diz already said, this wasn't discovered "immediately" because this is basically the same as a24 when no one used.

 

This.  It is economic changes that change viability of units even though they are not unit stats.  More metal on a map significantly changes impact of mercs and champs.  With old metal spawns 80 metal would be even too expensive to try merc strategy even with their stats.  With old metal spawns even at 50 metal it would be barely successful and only if allies would feed you metal.

Like @chrstgtr says, have to look at whole ecosystem.

Also, elephant archers were rendered useless with 2 pop cost. Lets make them champions and return cost to 1?

Edited by Dizaka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dizaka said:

Question:  if only a fe players can execute a merc rush then are they op or just a few players know how to play Carthage?  Just a question and not taking a position when making this post.

Incidentally, in a24 carthage merc sword cav were the same but noone used them ...

I lot of players go with that strategy, including noobs, I remember going for it some few times, and I was just bored of how unstoppable those units are. they just have very good stats and that was already true in A24, I remember noticing that, especially if compared with spear/axe cav. However, because of the changes to unit motion, it's only now that you can afford building a whole army completely made of swordcav.

8 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

There are key differences between A26 and A24 that makes you feel a difference: 

I didn't mean that introducing acceleration will make A26 identical to A24, what I meant is that, from a gameplay point of view, units acceleration means that units can turn away from battles a lot slower than without, wich is exactly the same as having slow turn rates. Just like in A24, cavalry will take a lot of damage when retreating.

I'm seeing yet again this tendency of swinging between balances, where cav rushing was practically dead in A24, and rushers wanted it back, and now boomers say it's too strong, and want it nerfed again.

I am not a strong rusher, but I think current balance in that regard is pretty good, and I don't want us to go back to the A24 situation.

8 hours ago, Stan` said:

Do you have a source for that claim?

it's not a claim, is just an impression. I would be quite happy if you tell me otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Actually, an easy change that we could *probably* all agree on is to make it harder for melee cavalry to break through palisades. Palisades are barely useful to slow down melee cavalry, and if melee cavalry were given a .3x versus palisades then defense against those raids could be possible if you are prepared. I would like to see palisades get good enough to the point where it is useful to build them in p1 to control cavalry rushes (but not good enough to stop infantry attacks). 

I agree.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, alre said:
17 hours ago, Stan` said:

 

it's not a claim, is just an impression. I would be quite happy if you tell me otherwise.

Well I'd very much like to fix the overlapping. But people with time, c++ and pathfinding experience are hard to come by :) If anyone can spot a mistake in the pushing code and help fix it by all means be my guest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

In A25, I got 12 kills with 3 spear cav in a 1v1 against a 1500 player. That is too OP.

I don't know... you must give us more details. Sometimes to boom players leave whole bunches of women hanging like low fruits, whatever is your cavalry force, is not OP to kill them, is only right.

Edited by alre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/12/2021 at 6:16 PM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Actually, an easy change that we could *probably* all agree on is to make it harder for melee cavalry to break through palisades. Palisades are barely useful to slow down melee cavalry, and if melee cavalry were given a .3x versus palisades then defense against those raids could be possible if you are prepared.

I can't agree on that one.

If we want the balancing discussing to be more fruitful, instead of proposing things, we first need to identify what needs to be fixed. When half of the community does not see the problem, then solving it will not work by suggesting a solution. Personally, I don't see it as a melee cavalry problem.

The low hack damage of pallisades could be argued to be a pallisade problem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

When half of the community does not see the problem, then solving it will not work by suggesting a solution. Personally, I don't see it as a melee cavalry problem.

Good point. We have to explain to the devs and nubs why there is a problem, show evidence to the (maybe as youtube vid) then propose changes. Also, this is another great point we should consider:

image.thumb.png.3195b96eb933fddc354286e39b6b392f.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create a thread where balance issues are proposed. The cull the, say, top 10 issues and put them in a new thread with a poll. Purpose of the poll is to guage which balance issues are felt most egregiously by the balancing community. Gives a priority list. Then have a thread for each issue in turn by order of the poll, and address those issues. Once a mild consensus is reached for the solution, post the patch up on Phab and move on to the next issue.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

The low hack damage of pallisades could be argued to be a pallisade problem.

I suppose you mean "hack resistance here". I guess it could be fixed that way as well. My main intention for having the multiplier was to not make palisades too effective against infantry, which would be the case if you just increased hack armor.

Apologies for falling into the specifics again XD.

One thing that might help us make balancing decisions is to categorize proposals by how "hard" they are to do. As examples:

  1.  Longshot proposals:  melee unit charging, 
  2. Medium proposals: attack-ground, cavalry acceleration for movement balancing
  3. quick fixes: add 100 wood 100 metal to blacksmith cost

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

We have to explain to the devs and nubs why there is a problem

It is not just devs and nubs, but players of different skills could also easily miscommunicate.

For players that have a comparieively slow APM, javelin cavalry would seem weak and pallisades might break before they can properly react. If you have higher APM, you might think that you have enough time to react  before the walls break and jav cavalry can always harass and run away instead of taking a losing battle

So things that one player might experience aren't necessarely experienced by all players. So in balancing discussion that is something to keep in mind. So lower rated players could experience things because they play suboptimal. That does not mean the higher rated player is always right, under the motto "They should just get better at the game". Both sides should probably try to understand what is realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2021 at 8:22 AM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

attack-ground

Still don't understand what this means. 

15 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

So things that one player might experience aren't necessarely experienced by all players. So in balancing discussion that is something to keep in mind. So lower rated players could experience things because they play suboptimal. That does not mean the higher rated player is always right, under the motto "They should just get better at the game". Both sides should probably try to understand what is realistic.

Good point. I have never used palisades for defending against cavalry so I don't know about their problems, but javelin cavalry is a big headache for whoever is getting rushed, and as the rusher I feel that it is too easy to do damage by rushing, even against good players. When I was noob, I thought that elephants and catapults are the most OP units because they can siege buildings and attack units. But later on my playstyle changed and then I began to realize the strength of cavalry. For anyone else, their playstyle determines what they find OP, even though the units themselves are not necessarily OP relative to other units. 

The only exception is Iberian fire cav: I have never heard anyone say that they are not too OP. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

Still don't understand what this means.

@Yekaterina the goal of attack-ground, also some people call it area-attack, is that ranged units can target a particular area of an enemy army if it is within range, in a25 ranged units can only attack the closest unit. I have never been able to test it but I have been excited about how it could improve balance and make gameplay more varied. There actually is some existing work on a diff that could be made into a mod or something to allow testing. To be honest, I would like anything to change up the current "melee units die first" fighting trend, since it is quite one dimensional and plainly favors ranged units that deal most damage and melee units that take the most damage. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...