Currently Online

Latest Posts

Topic: Balancing around the tempo tournament

JanO
Avatar
Joined: 2015-08-02, 11:56
Posts: 146
Ranking
At home in WL-forums
Posted at: 2020-04-27, 23:40

hessenfarmer wrote:
1. 1st hero should not be possible without having most of the economy
2. times to reach that point should be balanced among tribes
3. Changes to achieve that should be as minimal invasive as they could be

1) I'm not sure. If it leads to a deadlock, I think it's ok (but then it should be equal for all tribes).
2) If balanced means something like similar and not identical, then yes.
3) From code-perspective, yes. (I wanted to write something about bigger ideas should be discussable, but I think I know what happens then...)

hessenfarmer wrote:

Nordfriese wrote: I would additionally mention that heroes are and should be important, but perhaps they are too important as it is, so I would also propose
4. Take some focus away from making supersoldiers towards using medium-trained soldiers (without making supersoldiers cost-inefficient)

Ok noted. However I don't have a glue how to achieve this yet as the last weapon is already expensive and adds just the same amount of hitpoints as the previous one (which is spoken in percentage to less then the previous one). In the end everbody playing seriously and competitive would only do what is cost efficient. This is sad but I believe it is the truth. Sadly we are educated in this way in real life as well aren't we

Now you brought me back to the point with maintenance-cost:
Soldiers could, after sitting in a warehouse or milsite for maybe 30 minutes (or whatever) lose their last / highest ( / weakest ) promotion (only one time?) This should lead to players not train heroes to store them everywhere but instead train them only on demand.

This is just brainstorming. Pick, alter or reject whatever I write here face-wink.png


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1636
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2020-04-28, 00:02

kaputtnik wrote:

Heroes will ever be the strongest soldiers, so creating a hero will be ever the goal.

Not at all. If two half promoted soldiers cost as much as a hero and are more effective, why would I ever want to make a hero? I'll just keep making half soldiers and win with numbers.

But to be honest: I am not very familiar with all the promotion levels and i do not exactly know which armor/weapon produce which level of promotion. I am a friend to this game because of the nice graphics, the cozy gameplay, discovering a map step by step. So i am maybe not the person who should talk about hero creation face-wink.png Anyway i believe some people like the game in the same manner as i do.

yes, most people like the game this manner. I myself like to play it this manner every once in a while. But the thing is, nobody is stopping anyone from playing the game that manner. it's called casual gaming. it's not like if we take away a couple of starting wares here and there anyone's casual gaming will be affected. in fact, most people won't even notice. any change will only be relevant to highly competitive games. nobody is trying to forbid casual gaming.

Which is why I am most amazed to see so many casual gamers here trying to reject changes as if they would prevent them from casual gaming.

While someone else seem miffed about having to make fast heroes or lose to them. but they fail to realize that the key of the issue is that they are casual gamers and they are playing against competitive gamers. of course they are losing. if it is not by early hero rush, it will be by some different mean, but no one can pretend to play casually and stand up to a pro.

Nordfriese wrote:

by the way, I think I got the perfect easy idea for making first hero unimportant. Giving EVERYONE heroes FROM THE START!

Think about it: your starting stock of soldiers will include 10 heroes, and a few more with lesser promotions. Oh, you made an 11th after only 20 minutes? It hardly matters.

I would not want this to be the norm. So I think we could add a new starting condition - elite army, or something like this.

Sound good in theory, might seem pretty pointless in practice to give players free heroes IMHO. But if we'd have a starting condition like this, perhaps it would be possible to balance this special MP starting condition without changing the actual tribes? If so, I'd support this proposal.

it wouldn't need any balance at all. tribes are already decently balanced when they have a full economy. it's balancing the start that is trickier.

JanO wrote:

Now, as a contrast to those huge posts, just two short ideas:

  • Give Soldiers experience. Gained by winning fights, needed for higher promotions (maybe 0 experience -> all lvl 1 promotions possible, 1 experience -> all lvl 2 promotions possible etc.)

so, in order to help focus on the economy and not on fights, we should force people to fight if they want to train their soldiers? I don't see how it would be a good idea.

  • increase training time for higher promotions (lvl 1 promotions stay as now, lvl 2 promotions double (or even more) the time, lvl 3 double lvl2 time etc.)

easily fixed by building more training sites. aside from that, it's an artificial slow down, no different than a high number of promotions for a blacksmith.

and finally, it won't fix inequalities. if a tribe is faster, it will slow down everyone equally. if a player is faster, it will also slow down everyone equally.

Another idea, that was mentioned before, would be maintenance costs. Probably the hardest to implement and at the moment I haven't even a clue how to design this theoretically.

maintenance cost affecting soldiers would just force one to make heroes anyway, because they'd be cheaper to maintain. unless they are super expensive to keep, in which case upkeep would make heroes useless, and people would just fight with rookies.

finally, i want to make one last remark

the-x wrote:

Creating a hero should be the exception

actually, creating heroes used to be exactly that, the exception. it was something reserved for the very latest game. something almost unseen.

it only happened after months and months of gaming that i actually figured out first that it was possible to micromanage a hero without having a full flow of resources full time. i figured it serendipitously by doing no metal challenges of trident of fire, by the way.

and then i joined the first tournament, and i surprised eveyrone by getting the first hero after... 90 minutes!

and everyone was like "oooh, this guy makes heroes so fast! he broke the game!"

and i relaxed and didn't try to improve much, though i went to about 75 minutes.

and within the next year, worldsavior started to play. I remember his first few months, he was constantly asking questions, the best order to build, how many building X for every building Y. and everyone was like, "calm down dude, what we have is good enough". and he trounced me, because i wasn't applying myself fully. and then he still defeated me, though i managed some mixed success.

since then, time kept going down.

and now everyone can make heroes in 90 minutes, and nobody realizes how difficult it was, and that it took a lot of effort to figure out how. it literally took years.

and now people are all "oh, it's too easy to make heroes, we must make it harder". it's not easy. it's just that we figured out way to do it, and then we taught it to others.

and if we make it harder, you can be sure someone will figure out something, and it will be easy again.


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 476
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-04-28, 00:12

the-x wrote:

Creating a hero should be the exception

actually, creating heroes used to be exactly that, the exception. it was something reserved for the very latest game. something almost unseen.

it only happened after months and months of gaming that i actually figured out first that it was possible to micromanage a hero without having a full flow of resources full time. i figured it serendipitously by doing no metal challenges of trident of fire, by the way.

and then i joined the first tournament, and i surprised eveyrone by getting the first hero after... 90 minutes!

and everyone was like "oooh, this guy makes heroes so fast! he broke the game!"

and i relaxed and didn't try to improve much, though i went to about 75 minutes.

and within the next year, worldsavior started to play. I remember his first few months, he was constantly asking questions, the best order to build, how many building X for every building Y. and everyone was like, "calm down dude, what we have is good enough". and he trounced me, because i wasn't applying myself fully. and then he still defeated me, though i managed some mixed success.

since then, time kept going down.

and now everyone can make heroes in 90 minutes, and nobody realizes how difficult it was, and that it took a lot of effort to figure out how. it literally took years.

and now people are all "oh, it's too easy to make heroes, we must make it harder". it's not easy. it's just that we figured out way to do it, and then we taught it to others.

Yes face-grin.png i mean its crazy that they took such a long time before, today we cant just imagine it. Especially the last weeks i was so micromanaging the weekend always my atlantean hero and i am saying yes i was very happy to have a time like 19 minutes and 18:12 minutes.

But good players always come with a new way of thinking and so i see that you must have completely changed the way that is played over time.

Maybe with teaching we can so some more thing, like before tournament i only had the questions we talked about and now the replays - never thought world had almost the identical build like me, with some changes in street managegemt but face-smile.png the build order of mine is sligthly better if you look at times wares need to the building and which one starts.

Anyway in the actual situation i think making it harder is good way because it challanges us more


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 476
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-04-28, 00:26

"and then i joined the first tournament, and i surprised eveyrone by getting the first hero after... 90 minutes!"

This one reminded me a little bit of me in Tournament 2019 when i made a build with Barbarians with only axes and beer, it was a bit of a quantity build - but it was to say after the hero build i think the second most effective build on small or medium maps. these days i organized everything to get the most out of these two wares - i mean if i had understood the game mechanics with attack values these days, like i thought every upgrade made the unit 25% stronger, it might even been very perfect. but since i took a look at the values of attack improving by 1,4 and 1,4 while shields only 1,15 in february im now also going the hero build you done first in 2015 tournemant, since it is just the best working

So i am happy to play our next match, where we can try these things out


Top Quote
kaputtnik
Avatar
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 1873
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2020-04-28, 08:57

king_of_nowhere wrote:

kaputtnik wrote:

Heroes will ever be the strongest soldiers, so creating a hero will be ever the goal.

Not at all. If two half promoted soldiers cost as much as a hero and are more effective, why would I ever want to make a hero? I'll just keep making half soldiers and win with numbers.

But to be honest: I am not very familiar with all the promotion levels and i do not exactly know which armor/weapon produce which level of promotion. I am a friend to this game because of the nice graphics, the cozy gameplay, discovering a map step by step. So i am maybe not the person who should talk about hero creation face-wink.png Anyway i believe some people like the game in the same manner as i do.

yes, most people like the game this manner. I myself like to play it this manner every once in a while. But the thing is, nobody is stopping anyone from playing the game that manner. it's called casual gaming. it's not like if we take away a couple of starting wares here and there anyone's casual gaming will be affected. in fact, most people won't even notice. any change will only be relevant to highly competitive games. nobody is trying to forbid casual gaming.

Which is why I am most amazed to see so many casual gamers here trying to reject changes as if they would prevent them from casual gaming.

While someone else seem miffed about having to make fast heroes or lose to them. but they fail to realize that the key of the issue is that they are casual gamers and they are playing against competitive gamers. of course they are losing. if it is not by early hero rush, it will be by some different mean, but no one can pretend to play casually and stand up to a pro.

Yes, that's true. I didn't realized the fact that there are 2 types of widelands gamers.


Top Quote
JanO
Avatar
Joined: 2015-08-02, 11:56
Posts: 146
Ranking
At home in WL-forums
Posted at: 2020-04-28, 09:03

king_of_nowhere wrote:

JanO wrote:

Now, as a contrast to those huge posts, just two short ideas:

  • Give Soldiers experience. Gained by winning fights, needed for higher promotions (maybe 0 experience -> all lvl 1 promotions possible, 1 experience -> all lvl 2 promotions possible etc.)

so, in order to help focus on the economy and not on fights, we should force people to fight if they want to train their soldiers? I don't see how it would be a good idea.

This was already said. Just quoting Nordfriese and put an +1 under that would have sounded much less aggressive.

  • increase training time for higher promotions (lvl 1 promotions stay as now, lvl 2 promotions double (or even more) the time, lvl 3 double lvl2 time etc.)

easily fixed by building more training sites. aside from that, it's an artificial slow down, no different than a high number of promotions for a blacksmith.

and finally, it won't fix inequalities. if a tribe is faster, it will slow down everyone equally. if a player is faster, it will also slow down everyone equally.

From logic point of view it is more reasonable then artificial to give more complicated stuff (= production of advanced weapons, advanced training) a higher demand on time. At least more logical then having heroes falling from the sky into the starting condition, that would not fix the problem of having different fast first hero production either. But having extremely long training times for higher promotioins would promote half trained soldiers, even with more trainingsites. They are costly, space consuming and if you then have 4 or 7 of them, you still may wonder if it is more effective to train your soldiers only to lvl2 of each class.
If you really want to make hero production extraordnarily special, we need another rare input ware that is really rare on maps. Not like the gold, which one can literally find on each corner...

maintenance cost affecting soldiers would just force one to make heroes anyway, because they'd be cheaper to maintain. unless they are super expensive to keep, in which case upkeep would make heroes useless, and people would just fight with rookies.

The intrinsic maintenance cost I suggested last would precisely do that: Make (numerous) heroes expensive to keep. The model has many possibilities for adjustment, it does not necessarily make heroes useless, it can be logically explained and it would not affect balance.

Now let's shake hands, virtually of course. face-smile.png


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1687
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-05-01, 00:04

the-x wrote:

"and then i joined the first tournament, and i surprised eveyrone by getting the first hero after... 90 minutes!"

This one reminded me a little bit of me in Tournament 2019 when i made a build with Barbarians with only axes and beer

In that tournament you only used ATL face-wink.png

king_of_nowhere wrote:

kaputtnik wrote:

Heroes will ever be the strongest soldiers, so creating a hero will be ever the goal.

Not at all. If two half promoted soldiers cost as much as a hero and are more effective, why would I ever want to make a hero? I'll just keep making half soldiers and win with numbers.

+1

While someone else seem miffed about having to make fast heroes or lose to them. but they fail to realize that the key of the issue is that they are casual gamers and they are playing against competitive gamers. of course they are losing. if it is not by early hero rush, it will be by some different mean, but no one can pretend to play casually and stand up to a pro.

+1

Nordfriese wrote:

by the way, I think I got the perfect easy idea for making first hero unimportant. Giving EVERYONE heroes FROM THE START!

Think about it: your starting stock of soldiers will include 10 heroes, and a few more with lesser promotions. Oh, you made an 11th after only 20 minutes? It hardly matters.

I would not want this to be the norm. So I think we could add a new starting condition - elite army, or something like this.

Sound good in theory, might seem pretty pointless in practice to give players free heroes IMHO. But if we'd have a starting condition like this, perhaps it would be possible to balance this special MP starting condition without changing the actual tribes? If so, I'd support this proposal.

it wouldn't need any balance at all. tribes are already decently balanced when they have a full economy. it's balancing the start that is trickier.

JanO wrote:

Now, as a contrast to those huge posts, just two short ideas:

  • Give Soldiers experience. Gained by winning fights, needed for higher promotions (maybe 0 experience -> all lvl 1 promotions possible, 1 experience -> all lvl 2 promotions possible etc.)

so, in order to help focus on the economy and not on fights, we should force people to fight if they want to train their soldiers? I don't see how it would be a good idea.

+1

  • increase training time for higher promotions (lvl 1 promotions stay as now, lvl 2 promotions double (or even more) the time, lvl 3 double lvl2 time etc.)

easily fixed by building more training sites. aside from that, it's an artificial slow down, no different than a high number of promotions for a blacksmith.

and finally, it won't fix inequalities. if a tribe is faster, it will slow down everyone equally. if a player is faster, it will also slow down everyone equally.

Another idea, that was mentioned before, would be maintenance costs. Probably the hardest to implement and at the moment I haven't even a clue how to design this theoretically.

maintenance cost affecting soldiers would just force one to make heroes anyway, because they'd be cheaper to maintain. unless they are super expensive to keep, in which case upkeep would make heroes useless, and people would just fight with rookies.

+1

and within the next year, worldsavior started to play. I remember his first few months, he was constantly asking questions, the best order to build, how many building X for every building Y. and everyone was like, "calm down dude, what we have is good enough".

Looks like I should read some old discussions again face-wink.png

and now people are all "oh, it's too easy to make heroes, we must make it harder". it's not easy. it's just that we figured out way to do it, and then we taught it to others.

and if we make it harder, you can be sure someone will figure out something, and it will be easy again.

+1

JanO wrote:

Now you brought me back to the point with maintenance-cost: Soldiers could, after sitting in a warehouse or milsite for maybe 30 minutes (or whatever) lose their last / highest ( / weakest ) promotion (only one time?) This should lead to players not train heroes to store them everywhere but instead train them only on demand.

This wouldn't even work. Do you know why?

Nordfriese wrote:

. IMHO a desirable outline would be that a mixture of a few heroes plus many medium soldiers is stronger than many medium soldiers and also stronger than heroes only. Let me phrase it like this: if three players turn the same amount of ores into a) only heroes, b) only medium soldiers, or c) use half the ores for heroes and the rest for mediums – then C is stronger than A, and A stronger than B (and B weakest of the three).

I don't like it to share my insights, but this is already the case (at least if you replace "medium" soldiers by "weak" soldiers). At the other hand, we would need more matches with large distances to verify that.

This would not be trivial to ensure, but perhaps it could be done by fiddling with the upgrade costs and a non-linear level increase system.

How do you mean "non-linear"?

Nordfriese wrote:

Most of these suggestions are not that drastically, but yes we shouldn't change too much about this game for the sake of balance.

I think they are that drastically

I would additionally mention that heroes are and should be important, but perhaps they are too important as it is, so I would also propose
4. Take some focus away from making supersoldiers towards using medium-trained soldiers (without making supersoldiers cost-inefficient)

Matches with medium-trained soldiers can be played for example on goldless maps, and heroes are still there, and very cost-inefficient face-wink.png

So imho this is already enough.

hessenfarmer wrote:

  1. 1st hero should not be possible without having most of the economy

-1 As already stated, the current state allows more different strategies, brings more variety to the game. We have long distances and short distances between the players, which increases the depth of Widelands.

  1. times to reach that point should be balanced among tribes

depends on how much. Does anybody play in a 1vs1 like someone played in the TTT? I don't think so.

I'd agree to

  • lower XP of the Frisian blacksmith,

  • lower costs of Imperial Colosseum,

-making marble mines more clever,

  • maybe making barbarian trainingssides cheaper

  • *adding one gold to the costs of the atl. Labyrinth, as this would slow them down (especially when they train their OP level5 soldiers, which can overrun every other tribe on a short distance)

  • nerfing ATL maybe even more (removing gold thread maybe at least partly? even more gold added to trainingsside prices)

  1. Changes to achieve that should be as minimal invasive as they could be

Of course face-smile.png

If we can't agree what the problem is and what should be aimed to achieve I'd rather vote to not change anything.

+1

Nordfriese wrote:

by the way, I think I got the perfect easy idea for making first hero unimportant. Giving EVERYONE heroes FROM THE START!

Think about it: your starting stock of soldiers will include 10 heroes, and a few more with lesser promotions. Oh, you made an 11th after only 20 minutes? It hardly matters.

I would not want this to be the norm. So I think we could add a new starting condition - elite army, or something like this.

Sound good in theory, might seem pretty pointless in practice to give players free heroes IMHO. But if we'd have a starting condition like this, perhaps it would be possible to balance this special MP starting condition without changing the actual tribes? If so, I'd support this proposal.

+1 very good

honestly that starting condition sounds much more interesting to me than village, poor hamlet, struggling outpost and the discoveries face-wink.png

JanO wrote:

Now, as a contrast to those huge posts, just two short ideas:

  • Give Soldiers experience. Gained by winning fights, needed for higher promotions (maybe 0 experience -> all lvl 1 promotions possible, 1 experience -> all lvl 2 promotions possible etc.)

Counter suggestion: Play Wesnoth face-wink.png
This would just make the game much more military-focused, because it would force players to start many battles so the higher part of the economy can even start working. -1

+1 for the -1 ( = -1 )

  • increase training time for higher promotions (lvl 1 promotions stay as now, lvl 2 promotions double (or even more) the time, lvl 3 double lvl2 time etc.)

I like this idea face-smile.png This would keep supersoldiers the strongest while giving more importance to medium-trained soldiers.

At the other hand, on long distances one would still make mainly heroes.

I don't like the idea

Wouldn't fix the problem that a good atlantean player has a free win against any frisian player on early-contact maps…

As I mentioned, we could increase gold need of Atlantean Trainingssides and remove some gold thread.

And maybe we could change the order of Frisian training?

Like:

  • camp trains fur2 instead of attack3

and/or

  • camp trains attack2 by using a long sword instead of a broad sword.

(In that case the attack promotions look like long, long, broad, broad, double, double )

I mean, Frisians don't have the cheap evade training, so they seem to be somewhat disadvantaged.

Enough for now, I might comment pages 1-3 of this giant discussion another day.


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 476
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-05-05, 21:59

Back to our main topic on the chances after the main tournament, here in 1 post the 3 main ideas that were collected by players - now the question arises which ones we want to implement in the game:


ektor wrote:

I fully agree that the game needs to be completely overhauled so that it is indeed necessary to develop a complete economic system - before - we can get a hero!

Because without that, the basic idea of the game, in my humble opinion, loses all meaning.

Thats almost the same like my opinion. The basic Idea of the game has been always that its a stragegy game rather than a roleplay game.

If we tap all focus on this one hero, not only new players cant compete at all with us, i rather like a fun and long game where at the end experience wins than a short hero move through.

also is smalles strategic options even more cause if you only have the resources for your hero, you dont have any options than to build this hero.

-

A maybe nice solution to include also hektors and kapuittniks ideas might be:

  • a hero as the ultimative goal, hard and late to reach

  • cheap training sites and easy upgrades at the beginning to have some upgrades even at maps like crater when the first contact happens

  • the last speer upgrade superexpensive, the one before hard to reach and may be after something like 60 minutes in the game

maybe also some path you decide to go and then any interaction between the two competitive players


What a very fevoribly solution would be the one of kaputtnik: That a hero is the ultimative goal which good players can only achieve very rarely. It is a further challenge to us and it is something special in a game (like the goal in football, were you waiting very long for, if they defense right)

kaputtnik wrote:

I see it similar like simplypeachy, whereas i wouldn't write it that drastically. The last tournament was just an edgecase. This can't be used to balance the tribes. Maybe for playing on small maps, but in general skipping a large portion of the economy does not work on medium or big maps.

Do you have any alternate suggestion? would you prefer my earlier suggestion to move some marble cost from wineyards to mills and bakeries (therefore still keeping the distinction with "building material economy")? Or would you prefer to introduce experience for the imperial weaponsmith? or what else?

Making heroes should be expensive as possible i think. What most players do now is to work on creating fully trained heroes and let them fight against each other. Probably the one who made the most heroes wins the game. In my opinion this is not the way this game should work. If heroes are very expensive, the chance to fight with medium trained soldiers growth. Then there will be a difference if one soldier has one evade/attack/health/... point more than the other. On the opposite winning a fight with fully trained soldiers is luck.

So in my opinion the question shouldn't be 'how to balance the tribes to get fully trained soldiers' but ' how to balance to get more medium trained soldiers'. Creating a hero should be the exception. But i don't know how to archive this face-grin.png


Top Quote