Map Database  •  FAQ  •  RSS  •  Login

Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

<<

EDMatt

Knight

Posts: 409

Joined: 08 Jul 2012, 00:43

KaM Skill Level: Expert

Post 31 Aug 2012, 14:51

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

Maybe a good solution for scouts (because they are so weak at the moment) is to make the chance of a hit more probable.
do you agree?

also i have a replay of a knight hitting x-bow 12 times and it took 14 hits for the x-bow to die, I will try and add the replay for you guys to see, but IMHO there needs to be a solution for this kind of stuff, because realistically the xbow does not deserve to live after 12 blows, I don't care what you say!
Image
Roses are red
violets are blue
I.G. is blessed
To be the BEST!!
<<

Da Revolution

Knight

Posts: 720

Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 12:07

Location: Near the inn

Post 31 Aug 2012, 14:57

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

It sometimes happens that they take many hits without dieing, thats bad luck, but most of the time they die fast. Ed he did deserve to live after 12 blows!
"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path" - Buddha
<<

Lewin

User avatar

KaM Remake Developer

Posts: 3822

Joined: 16 Sep 2007, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Skilled

ICQ: 269127056

Website: http://lewin.hodgman.id.au

Yahoo Messenger: lewinlewinhodgman

Location: Australia

Post 31 Aug 2012, 15:14

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

Probability wise, who is more probable to miss, scout or barbarian?
Scout of course. Did you know barbarians have the same armour as leather troops, and the same hit points as a mounted unit? They're monsters. In fact they're basically the same as a scout, but with more than 2x the chance to injure.
Chance of scout injuring barbarian: (35/2) = 17.5%
Chance of barbarian injuring scout: (75/2) = 37.5%
Before you say "barbarian is OP!": Yes barbarians are OP, that's the point of them. They're super powerful units that can't be equipped, you only get them at the start. Remember how tough they were to fight in the campaign for the first time?
Seriously though, you're right. People shouldn't be able to exploit it. On the other hand: out of range is out of range. Maybe arrows that hit the unit on the next tile shouldn't count as a hit? It would just be a miss then. Or a combination between your idea and my idea: arrows 'prefer' to scatter further in the opposite direction but IF they scatter to a tile that should be out of range, it doesn't count as a hit...
It's not ideal but I can't come up with anything better now.

Edit: actually using archers at maximum range is already stronger because they will all focus on a couple of units, whereas their targeting will be much more random if they can hit more units.
That's a neat idea, if the unit is further away than the maximum range the hit is ignored :)
So it doesn't matter if the arrow scatters out of range, it won't do any damage unless the unit it hits is standing within range. I can't think of any downsides, since archers will only aim for units within range, so the only case this will happen is if either the unit steps out of range before the arrow lands, or the arrow scatters and hits a further away unit it was not intended to hit. I guess it could make bowmen vs bowmen face-offs tricky, because as soon as the bowmen step the tiniest amount out of range they cannot be hurt. So you won't take so many casualties when stepping your men away from archers when you were just in range of them. Hardly a big deal though.
I've implemented it :)
It sometimes happens that they take many hits without dieing, thats bad luck, but most of the time they die fast. Ed he did deserve to live after 12 blows!
The knight has a (55/3) = 18% chance of killing the crossbowman with every strike, if the crossbowman is facing him. If he's facing away it's much much more likely. So on average it takes 5 blows, and could take up to infinity in the worst case ;)
<<

Bo_

User avatar

Knight

Posts: 538

Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 17:18

KaM Skill Level: Beginner

Location: Belgium

Post 31 Aug 2012, 15:19

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

Well I didn't know barb had the same hp as scouts, it's ok then. But yes, as long as you can't train barbarians there isn't realy a balance issue.
Kick fast, think Bo.
<<

Siegfried

User avatar

Knight

Posts: 494

Joined: 24 Jul 2009, 22:00

Post 31 Aug 2012, 17:14

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

Did you know barbarians have the same armour as leather troops, and the same hit points as a mounted unit?
Hmm, in TSK the barbarian had only a defense value of 1.
This changed with TPR, there it got the defense value of 2, probably because the barbarian became the same as the warrior - and it would have looked extremely stupid if the full-armored warrior had no defense ;)

Btw. @Lewin
I'm pretty sure that this is the reason why Mission 8 TSK is rather impossible to solve right now. The attacking barbarians are far stronger with defense 2 than they were in the original TSK. I always wondered why this was the case, but this would be a very reasonable explanation.
<<

Lewin

User avatar

KaM Remake Developer

Posts: 3822

Joined: 16 Sep 2007, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Skilled

ICQ: 269127056

Website: http://lewin.hodgman.id.au

Yahoo Messenger: lewinlewinhodgman

Location: Australia

Post 31 Aug 2012, 17:28

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

Did you know barbarians have the same armour as leather troops, and the same hit points as a mounted unit?
Hmm, in TSK the barbarian had only a defense value of 1.
This changed with TPR, there it got the defense value of 2, probably because the barbarian became the same as the warrior - and it would have looked extremely stupid if the full-armored warrior had no defense ;)
I'm afraid you're wrong about that, I just modified our unit.dat editor to load the TSK version, and the barbarian still has 2 defence. From where did you hear that they had 1?
Btw. @Lewin
I'm pretty sure that this is the reason why Mission 8 TSK is rather impossible to solve right now. The attacking barbarians are far stronger with defense 2 than they were in the original TSK. I always wondered why this was the case, but this would be a very reasonable explanation.
Nah it's because we made archers about twice as likely to miss as in TSK/TPR. This effects most missions where you have archers at the start and are expected to defeat a large force. If your idea was right then it wouldn't have been playable in TPR either, but it is because there's been a lot of testing done for SR3 (and we take mission files from SR3)
It's been fixed since then, you now have more starting troops, same with most of the missions (so hopefully the campaign will be a lot better now)
<<

Bence791

Knight

Posts: 618

Joined: 20 Jul 2012, 20:25

KaM Skill Level: Beginner

Location: Hungary

Post 31 Aug 2012, 17:46

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

Guys...

As I know, Barbarians have 100% chance of hitting and 25% chance of blocking, Warriors have 75% hitting chance and 50% blocking chance. Warriors have that kind of armour like leather armored troops, but they only can be countered by knights, and sometimes Barbarians. Barbarians may suffer losses against swordsmen too, 'cause of their weak armor. They are the mercenary elite, so they need to be "monsters", and they are exactly. They might seem to be unstoppable, and they are unstoppable in large amounts. But that costs so much gold chests and they cannot be equipped as well. So these monsters are only for battle missions imo, where they usually do what is needed... :)

And I don't think that developers have changed the Barbarians' defense value for the TPR, they implemented a "twin" of them with better armour, who is the same monster, but a bit tougher and lasts longer in melee fighting.
The Kamper is always taking my colour!

<<

Lewin

User avatar

KaM Remake Developer

Posts: 3822

Joined: 16 Sep 2007, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Skilled

ICQ: 269127056

Website: http://lewin.hodgman.id.au

Yahoo Messenger: lewinlewinhodgman

Location: Australia

Post 31 Aug 2012, 17:52

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

As I know, Barbarians have 100% chance of hitting and 25% chance of blocking, Warriors have 75% hitting chance and 50% blocking chance. Warriors have that kind of armour like leather armored troops, but they only can be countered by knights, and sometimes Barbarians. Barbarians may suffer losses against swordsmen too, 'cause of their weak armor. They are the mercenary elite, so they need to be "monsters", and they are exactly. They might seem to be unstoppable, and they are unstoppable in large amounts. But that costs so much gold chests and they cannot be equipped as well. So these monsters are only for battle missions imo, where they usually do what is needed... :)

And I don't think that developers have changed the Barbarians' defense value for the TPR, they implemented a "twin" of them with better armour, who is the same monster, but a bit tougher and lasts longer in melee fighting.
None of your statistics are right in any way...
Barbarians and warriors are identical in statistics, same defence, attack, etc.
Barbarians do not have a "100% chance of hitting and 25% chance of blocking" and warriors do not have a "75% hitting chance and 50% blocking chance". Where did you gets those numbers from? It all depends on which unit they are fighting, but even against a militia/serf with no armour it's only a 75% chance to hit if attacking from the front. Defence depends on who is attacking. They have the same defence and hitpoints as a scout, so they'll be killed in about the same way.
<<

Bence791

Knight

Posts: 618

Joined: 20 Jul 2012, 20:25

KaM Skill Level: Beginner

Location: Hungary

Post 31 Aug 2012, 17:54

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

Oh, I thougt every unit has a "hitting chance", and if he can hit by this chance, the other unit can block his hit by another, "blocking chance"... >< Sorry then, I don't wanna say anything stupidness, i thougt it is somehow like this
The Kamper is always taking my colour!

<<

Lewin

User avatar

KaM Remake Developer

Posts: 3822

Joined: 16 Sep 2007, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Skilled

ICQ: 269127056

Website: http://lewin.hodgman.id.au

Yahoo Messenger: lewinlewinhodgman

Location: Australia

Post 31 Aug 2012, 17:56

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

Oh, I thougt every unit has a "hitting chance", and if he can hit by this chance, the other unit can block his hit by another, "blocking chance"... >< Sorry then, I don't wanna say anything stupidness, i thougt it is somehow like this
Well sort of, the attack strength is the hitting chance, you then divide the attack strength by the defence of the unit you are hitting, and that gives you the chance. So a barbarian (attack 75) against a swordsman (defence 3) gives you (75/3)% = 25% chance of injuring.
<<

Siegfried

User avatar

Knight

Posts: 494

Joined: 24 Jul 2009, 22:00

Post 31 Aug 2012, 18:11

Re: Scouts and barbarians ... what the f?

I'm afraid you're wrong about that, I just modified our unit.dat editor to load the TSK version, and the barbarian still has 2 defence. From where did you hear that they had 1?
Well, there was a main discussion thread on the german forums some time ago -> http://knightsandmerchants.de/include.p ... eadid=1222

A summary of this was also posted on the old forums (beware, it's all in german) -> http://www.atfreeforum.com/knights/viewtopic.php?t=493

And I have the official strategy book where these values are presented.

I just decoded the unit.dat for TPR and it has 2. And - which caught me by surprise - the TSK indeed had a defense strength of 2, too. So I underestimed the barbarians for all the long time. ;)

Return to “Feedback / Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests