0.8 New Hero Balancing Thread

[Chazar]

Just a quick reply, Barbarians hp upgrade cost increases per hp, ...

I find increasing skill upgrade costs very confusing, especially if a new player has no chance to look up the increasing costs for each hero class anywhere.

This is made a lot worse by the mechanism that allows one keep the points and then buy multiple upgrades for cheap at once. (Maybe this was a bug? I hope so, if not, see my suggestion to fix it below.)

Of course, increasing skill costs are an excellent tool to balance out things. So here are some suggestions to make them easily understandable:

• Skills that increase in cost should be clearly marked as such, maybe just add an asterisk behind the cost. That way, once can easily see and understand that costs are a little more complex.
• There should be at most 2-4 different types of cost progression for all hero classes, to keep things simple. So maybe instead of an asterisk behind the cost, a symbol (e.g. a roman number) indicates the cost progression kind for that particular skill.
  For example, once could have Type I: cost remains constant, Type II: +5 at each level, Type III: +10 at each level, Type IV: *2 at each level.
  Or, if the is enough room in the dialogue and such progressions are acceptable, why not write "+5"/"+10"/"*2" at the cost? Even better!
• Abandon the mechanism that allows multiple buys at lower costs. If this was not a bug, but intended, then I propose the following alternative:
  Skill costs progress at each buy as normal. However, unused skill points may gather interest each turn. Maybe the amount of interest gained each turn is tied to the intelligence score, maybe it is tied to a new ability. In the end it is similar: not using the points now yields a discount for later. Of course, such an increase in unused skill points is more beneficial on larger maps, so maybe the interest is inversely proportional to the number of cities, but I think this is getting way to complicated.

It took me a while to understand that skill costs may increase sometimes, since heroes don't level each turn. Then I learned about the possibility to save costs, and then I appeared that the Valkyries' attack-leadership suddenly no longer increases, when I once decided to not have the time to save the points. A mark at the skill cost in the hero dialogue that shows whether or not a skill has increasing costs is easy to implement and avoids this confusion - and alerts veteran players about possible changes. Easy improvement, no?

[SnotlinG]

This is made a lot worse by the mechanism that allows one keep the points and then buy multiple upgrades for cheap at once. (Maybe this was a bug? I hope so, if not, see my suggestion to fix it below.)

This has been a bug in the client, but its only been a displaybug. It should not be possible to buy cheaper that way.

Good idea to add some kind of asterix on skills that have an offset cost increase, we will look into this.

Barbarian has been changed:
Battle +8 / 10 points
Intelligence starts at 90% (He is a barbarian after all

HorseLord has his starting UL lowered to 10, and his maxvalue lowered to 14.

[Igor]

Men, that's a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig problem. Count number of 'i' and you will understand how big this is.
Horse Lord is unstopable on maps where terrain is mostly grass, sand or ice.
At level 4 (30 points to spend) he will +25 leadership in open (or in sand, or in ice - depend on map terrain): 5+10x2=25
Additional to this, he has group-move bonus +2 with adding +3 per 10 points.
At level 6 he will be +25 leadership in open (sand or ice) and +8 group-move bonus: 2+3x2=8.
You never stop him without other Hors Lord.

Some men speak a lot here, but they don't play ladder games and don't understand quite what they speak.
I ask you to hear players who play many ladder games, most of them is in top 10 of the ladder.
That was very bad that testing new heroes was without consultation with best players of the ladder.
This hero is biggest problem of the game, much more than demon was.

[LPhillips]

Igor, they're being pretty flexible. They don't have to "consult" anyone if they don't want to. Let's actually allow some time for the dust to settle, eh?

[TheVic]

Actually, I must say thath I in princip agree with Igor here, the news about the heroes has been virtually nil, and they are a HUGE inpact on the game.

I also remember that Snotling/pirhana previously said that gold membership NEVER should give any "In game advantage".

Reading about the new heroes, that seems obiously not true as some will have units other do not.

[hatchfactory]

I also remember that Snotling/pirhana previously said that gold membership NEVER should give any "In game advantage".

I hear what your meaning, but I'd like to point out that a gold membership isn't required but an individual purchase per hero currently at 5 euros or 6.54 dollars, and thats indefinitely.

A gold memberships current cost is 40 euros or 52.30 US and doesn't come with the heroes as that still remains to be an additional fee.

[LPhillips]

The new heroes have an impact, but are they an advantage?

That is only true if their quality and power is greater than the free heroes, or else the opportunity cost of using the new ones balances out their strength. Thus, we need to wait for the dust to settle in order to see how much of an "advantage" they will be. The only advantage if they are not stronger than the old heroes is the flexibility they provide to the strategist.

I can't weigh in much on the idea of paying for the new heroes. However, I didn't mind donating without definite prospect of in-game reward, and now anyone can give a small amount of money for a very definite in-game reward. This strikes me as a validation of the idea that game-provided funds will be used to improve the game. The thing which remains to be seen is whether this amounts to "purchasing an advantage" or if the heroes are really not any stronger than the others, and thus merely a bit of fun for players who support the game.

[piranha]

The new heroes are meant as fun units but not better than the other heroes so they will be balanced to be that.

We listen to all opinions and the goal is to make the heroes just as good/bad as the current ones but open new ways of playing. Don't want them to be the exact same strategy as the "old ones".

I know that there are some strong opinions every time a balance change is applied so I think sometimes a bit of testing is required before being sure.

Barbarian:
This guy is only useful when he is on the front line. Compared to other heroes who are always safe behind 7 other units (14 HP) this guys skill comes into play when he is fighting so he needs to be a bit strong from the start or he will just die to some bad luck all the time or have to stand in the back and do nothing until he levels a few times. It will be hard to balance him but its just 1 unit. Its not like demons that are 4-5 are you keep getting new ones all the time. I'd like to see him used a bit before nerfing him more.
We already did lower him a bit.

Horse lords:
Ok this guy really dominate the open areas but I find that 90% of all battles that matter happen on city terrain where he is useless. He is probably very good on some map where all players need to go through a passage way to reach each other but I'd still like to see him used a bit before changing him.
You may be right about him being a big problem, then he will get lowered.


About the premium / donate questions:
Just going with free donations would probably bring in some but I think it would only be a few people who donate quite a lot while the majority wouldn't bother at all. I know about humble indie bundle and other examples of the opposite. Just take some kickstarter campaigns that have been extremely successful, but I don't think we are there yet. If we can grow the community and reach a bigger crowd and build a reputation it could be a option in the future.

We look at is like this. You can play the game for free, you can enjoy 3 games going which I know many people are satisfied with from looking at their number of games. Then you can for a the cost of a few beers get one year silver membership which unlocks that limit. Our audiance are mostly men in 20 - 50, its not kids so warbarons should be one of their lowest cost per fun available in life. Then there is gold membership which is a way to say that I like this game, I want to support it and it gives you some nice features that makes it easier to play.
The premium heroes are one time fees.

It's not like we are going to swim around in money, our goal is that it will cover the expenses we have and if it becomes more it will only go to make the game better.

[Argammon]

Perhaps you should disable to Barbarian on small maps? I think it is impossible to balance him both for small and big maps.

Also, I would like to note that Igor has an excellent grasp of the game. The problem is that his english is not good enough to explain his point. Therefore what he says may sound nonsensical even though it does make sense. Nonetheless, you should IMO listen to what he says.

[piranha]

I'm sure Igor has a great understanding of the game. His ladder stats speaks for itself. I'm going to be very interested to hear what he and all other active players and ladder players have to say about the heroes after playing some games with them. If the heroes need balancing having some experience with them will make it easier to balance them right when we do it.

I know language can make it a bit difficult but I can figure out what he or the knights of ukraine mean usually so it's not really a big problem.