Unit balancing

[LPhillips]

LPhillips,

Siege: The number of maps with high defended neutrals is VERY low. 95% of maps use the default 1 unit defender. Yes, in cases where neutral cities have 5+ defenders a case can be made for early siege. But those are so rare that it's more worth noting that as an exception rather than a rule of well balanced production including siege units.

...

Yeti: I fully agree they should lead others for a cost of 2. Not sure they need a fear factor as high as 5 since Mammoth already has that much. Maybe a 2 or 3 Fear factor tops.

...

Crusaders: I could care less if their UL went to 2. I'd never make them for UL when I can make a scout instead for 1/10 the cost. It's a nice extra bonus (like the Yeti getting a small Fear value in snow) but not a make/break to get them used more. They either get made for their Morale on small/poor maps or they don't get made at all.

KGB

KGB,

I don't want to make a heavy argument for siege against neutrals. My argument is more along the lines of siege being cheap, easily produced, and readily available against players who use city walls and towers. It's a bit odd not to recognize the argument after you pointed out how a +10 city was so dominant early in our test game. If your opponent had occupied the city first, you'd have found that (probably plundered) catapult to be invaluable. I also think it's very important not to ignore the fact that cities can (and often do) contain more than 8 defenders, so siege is sometimes a better value than morale even if it's only negating 5. It's not in 8 vs 8 combat that siege gains its heavy edge. And now we're seeing a lot more map construction based on balanced, sound principles including defended neutrals and accessible towers at key points. I don't think I need to stress how important a +10 or even +15 guard tower is in the right place. If you want to seriously discuss neutrals and expansion, I really believe we'll see less and less examples of "kill one dragon for free production" in our maps. I have already noticed the changes. And we don't have enough official maps for you to throw out that "95%" statement. I know of 5 right now that use better employment of map settings than that, and I doubt there are over 25 approved maps

Yeti at 5 fear would have to come with a slight cost increase. But then it would only be active in Snow terrain. (Time to take a moment to feel relieved that the "invisibility" perk didn't make it in.) Mammoths just provide +5 morale, not fear. I don't think they are relevant to the argument. Unless you're suggesting that Yetis leading at 2 with a +5 bonus would edge out Mammoths. Mammoths are rather useless for attacking cities, so they're just like big taxis. Yetis with +4 or +5 fear on snow only would truly be limited to snow combat, so maybe they could retain +2 in other combat? Much like the Krakens' multiple bonus levels.
To be honest, I'd love to go with some more fun mechanics like Yetis gaining +1 fear swarm bonus on snow. 5 Yetis for 5 fear! Or a simple banding bonus on snow only. But some people would undoubtedly flag those concepts as a bit too steep in learning curve.

I'd just like to see the Crusader serve its purpose better. It's not even worth diverting them to use +1 UL even when they're conveniently nearby. They're just a cheap, easily produced support unit for poor maps as you said. It would be nice if they were at least good at "crusading".

[KGB]

LPhillips,

It's a bit odd not to recognize the argument after you pointed out how a +10 city was so dominant early in our test game. If your opponent had occupied the city first, you'd have found that (probably plundered) catapult to be invaluable.

Said Catapult was most definitely not plundered. From the map editor I knew the city also made Elves so there was no reason to plunder it given I would have the 1 turn unit of choice already there and I might need that Catapult later in the game. I did however plunder the Catapult in the +10 city since that one was useless and better changed into Hv Infantry + 3rd hero.

If you want to seriously discuss neutrals and expansion, I really believe we'll see less and less examples of "kill one dragon for free production" in our maps. I have already noticed the changes. And we don't have enough official maps for you to throw out that "95%" statement. I know of 5 right now that use better employment of map settings than that, and I doubt there are over 25 approved maps

I hope this is true. But there are a lot of submitted maps where it's not. Many players don't care or don't understand they can fully control what's in the neutrals. So while there are definitely >25 maps now (5 full pages of 9 maps, plus part of a 6th and more coming every day that are not yet official but are being played) I still maintain that a vast majority do not do anything at all about tailoring production in the neutrals to be anything more than 1 defender.

Mammoths just provide +5 morale, not fear. I don't think they are relevant to the argument. Unless you're suggesting that Yetis leading at 2 with a +5 bonus would edge out Mammoths. Mammoths are rather useless for attacking cities, so they're just like big taxis. Yetis with +4 or +5 fear on snow only would truly be limited to snow combat, so maybe they could retain +2 in other combat? Much like the Krakens' multiple bonus levels.

I think that's exactly what would happen. With the Yeti able to lead, you don't need the Mammoth to do it. Just like right now the Scorpion can't lead in the desert, so you need either the Sandworm, Medusa or Elemental. If the Scorpion could lead then all those 3 units value gets reduced since they no longer lead units. I think a +5 Fear in Snow and +3 elsewhere is good. Would need a cost increase to 750 for that since it would now definitely be better than the Crusader. So the big question is the stack movement bonus and what would need to be done to the Mammoth if the Yeti got it (would Mammoth need to become like Sandworm and lead for 1).

KGB

[LPhillips]

I think we'll see even hundreds of submitted maps that aren't considered unique nor well constructed enough for recognition in the future. At this point, we can expect more from our maps than popping cities around the terrain. You compare something like Jeremy's 1066 with its care to detail and balance with that horrendous affair submitted recently featuring 15 cities and 8 spawns, and you can see polar opposites of the scale. We seem to be to the point at which Snotling/Piranha can afford to pick only the top 20 percentile or better. Completely irrelevant to this discussion really, but it's worth noting. Looking very optimistic!

Back to the point:
A little yeti cost increase is expected, and not unwelcome if they become true support units (more fear and maybe escort). Fear is the big thing. Both units are a little on the fence between support units and front line units right now. Yetis' support capabilities are too poor (with no lead ability and a mediocre bonus even in their native terrain), and their combat isn't quite up to par for a 700 gold level 2 unit, unless they're on home terrain. Mammoths are currently really a frontline unit, not a support unit. They're just like big APC's or snow taxis. The +5 in snow is just a little bonus. If Yetis had just the +5 snow fear, +3 normal fear I'd consider them a good snow unit and even a decent support unit for poor maps. The lead @2 isn't really all that important if they have fear. Wouldn't bother me if Mammoths changed a bit, but they're still only a 3-turn unit.

Hopefully our discussions are useful to the admin; we're not getting any definite feedback yet

[piranha]

Hopefully our discussions are useful to the admin; we're not getting any definite feedback yet

Reading all post, but sometimes not sure what to make out of things. Several players with different opinions .

About unit balancing it would be much easier if we have one thread where we put lists of what we think.

Like this:

Mammoth hp 4 -> 3, defense 20 -> 10
Heavy infantry defense 10 -> 5

Right now some people want units to be less special so all units follow a line where you pay more for more of everything and some like units that are useful in some situations and in some they are bad.
Some want it to be realistic and some don't know or think about whats realistic.

About maps, I see there are more and more maps showing up. We might need some moderator or use the voting system more. I think all maps that look like a real map should be available but we should categorize them better. Official maps should be the better ones while the other maps can be listed under another category.
It's becoming harder to keep track of everything that goes on the site with forums discussions, bug reports, evaluate maps a bit (at least which ones to make ladder), keep improving the game and also work on marketing to bring more people here.
Not sure but perhaps a "moderator group" should be formed where some key people can discuss balancing for example and come up with the next version unit stats. It's just a bit hard to let go of the control .

[LPhillips]

Not sure but perhaps a "moderator group" should be formed where some key people can discuss balancing for example and come up with the next version unit stats. It's just a bit hard to let go of the control .

I suggest only giving control of sections where control is less important to you. If you can delegate the workload little by little, you won't find it increasingly stressful. The thing that generally bogs down and kills home-made projects like this is stress from overloading oneself.

Two examples:
1) Have a forum admin who is level-headed and also well involved in the game. Of course you need someone who wants the position, too. Maybe someone who is already involved in the forum. It looks like you have about 15-25 people who read the forum regularly. Moonknight, KGB, Cobra, myself, and others, we're all opinionated but probably capable of reviewing posts, moderating, and compiling information for you. I don't want the job, because I spend too much time here already. Supposed to be building furniture right now! That's a big reason I quit before
2) You can set simple guidelines for maps and give one person or group of people the ability to accept/veto them before they ever get to you. So instead of ending up with 200 maps up for vote, you allow someone to verify their eligibility for voting. If a map is rejected, a new version of it cannot be submitted for one week. Of course you can't set reasonable guidelines for scenarios. And the group can be required to hold anything unusual for you so that you get a look at everything interesting! You could even set a separate forum for this group where they collate and discuss new map entries.
The guidelines can be simple, like "You must not be able to reach your opponent on turn one (or two?)", "The map cannot obviously be the result of very little or poor effort" (EG, someone who just plops 10 cities down on a 100x100 and makes roads between them), "The map cannot be intentionally slanted to the advantage of one team or player" (remember these are for non-scenario maps).

Anyway, it seems like there are ways to take some load from you without you losing control or involvement in your own project. Because after all, we're all just testers along for the ride.

[LPhillips]

This is one reason you will soon need a forum moderator. To deal with crap like this. Hah!

[Moonknight]

I have noticed that about 75% of my enemies/partners are making Demons as soon as they can...which makes me like elves and wizards even more.

Heavy Infantry have come back in a big way (just like they were in Beta3). I think they need to be toned down a touch, but I agree that they do get expensive to upkeep quite quickly!

I agree that Yeti should have lead privileges in the snow, only makes since!

[Negern]

Agree with Moonknight. Demons feels a little too "user friendly" at the moment. They are cheap, fast to build, very powerful, flying and have a bonus which cant get negated. Perhaps they would get more balanced if the banding bonus got activated first when the second unit entered the stack, and then only a 10 bonus. I don't get why a lone demon would get a 10-bonus for banding.

[kenc80]

I don't get why a lone demon would get a 10-bonus for banding.

hmmm. good point!

[Jeremy]

I agree it would be nice to have maps categorized better.

We definately could have moderators -- particularly for initial submission. But different people like different types of maps. Some, for example, prefer symetrical maps, and some really don't like symetrical maps. Our system should have both of those types.

I'd suggest instead just crowdsourcing it. Any new map gets placed in a 'New Maps' folder. Each player can vote up or down on a map. Each of those players can change their one vote for each map at any time. Those maps where (Upvote minus Downvote) is the over a threshold of 10 gets put into 'Recommended Maps' Top 18 maps get put into 'Top Recommended Maps'. Maps where Upvote - Downvote is -10 or lower gets put into 'Rejected Maps' (but they could be upgraded again via voting.)

Could map makers make lots of accounts to vote their map up? Yes, they could. But let's not worry about that problem until it actually happens -- and make it clear that it's very much not okay. 1 vote per map per player.

We could also have a list called 'Moderator's Picks', which a few people could hand pick things for. Although I suggest that maps in that list still be in the regular 'Top Recommended', 'Recommended', etc. lists as well -- we probably want those maps to be easily findable.