New unit brainstorm

[pawel95]

Well at first i think it will be maybe "better balanced" when adding the !Warrior! to the MP Game,so matt is right here about the paper rock..system. However TDL is also right that without this unit the balancing of the game is also good so it isn´t that really important to implement new units only to have a much better balancing. We shoudln´t forget about it,that more implementation ==> More and longer testing (Wont be warrior than the only type of army in MP games? (like lances in older release)).

My suggestion was to reimplement the townhall, but Barbs should be only avaible in Campaign/some tactic missions and not buy/Doable.

About new units. I also dont think that we would need much new units only to have them in game , but like Matt said his idea with this pushing recruits for siege equipment should be a good thing for the Remake and it is only that the game is more "logical" and so here won´t be any discussion about Balanced good / not needed unit (or sth like that)



Last Point is that this for me isn´t an argument:

I wouldnt expect you to , since you arent very active at all ingame and on teamspeak, huh?

The developers aren´t for example also (that often) on TS, i dont think that he dont know what is actualy going on in the world of remake However Matt is still right with the not perfect balancing about Knights and Lances(Knights aren´t beatable really with xbows(Opinion from some other players) / lances arent used more in actually test release)

Last but not least @Krom: like i have said it is clear that moved units need really a huge work(when working without 3d programs). I also think that the existing units are enough(but changing the thing,that warrior would be madeable is an other thing)
Well Matt said to me that he is able to make some good looking Units/objects that will fit into Kam Style, maybe when he will post sth. we will see if it is correct and good for implementing or not really.

From which sides do you need exactly the animation of the stonemeason? So the same like cutting from front only from perspective from behind and from left/right ?

EDIT:

One moment the market is imbalanced, the next second it isn't, then rush is too strong and can't be countered, now it can be countered after all, now you say sword fighters are overpowered, I guess the next thing is that they aren't overpowered at all.

I think you are right at that point. Market values are still a discussion topic,arent it? So we shouldn´t implement to many things so the game will be completly not balanced in the end.

pawel95

[Menszu]

While you're considering technical problems with drawing units, let me add:
Redrawing them is quite easy, I already made new barbarian style movement south-west in like a hour.
However it might be much harder to draw for example stonemason from the beginning, but if you find it usefull, and it wouldn't be a waste of time I could probably do it mixing masons skin with barbarian swinging the axe animation.

Just for show up: http://i.picasion.com/pic64/007787cef6b ... 0381ea.gif

[pawel95]

Well i must say no! It is easy to redraw sth from an original thing(like my wulf): i only neede one perfect color setting and a good plain system and the other 70 pictures were just easy. however the problem is,that it must fit in game and not everything is actualy the same.
If i wanna do a fox in game,i cannot use only the wulf,because wulfs are jumping (Fast running) but foxes moving otherwise,so you need to draw each animation new or "just" redraw each of the 64-72 pictures new and this is than bigger work than your photoshopped barbar for example,where you normaly use a kam person and give them some new jackets/weapon etc.

However this is really not the point here in this topic how easy or hard it is, its more about discussing if some new units are needed and which one(and if they help to balance the game, or not)

[Da Revolution]

Maybe its wrong to say we need a new (recycled) unit for balancing issues. It could add a new dimension to the strategies, especially when adding a new building for it. Yes swordfighters are really strong now, but not overpowered. Making them less powerful would not be an option because people won't make them anymore. A counter against them would be really nice as long as this unit won't be abusable, this can be achieved by a certain unit cost.

[EDMatt]

Lol excuse me, since when did we have to add new units to balance the game?

You probably haven't heard much about what was going on recently, have you?
I wouldnt expect you to , since you arent very active at all ingame and on teamspeak, huh?
Would be nice if you could join us sometime for a discussion, this isnt a unit balance topic, so do it there.

EDMatt, what exactly do you want to tell us and TDL we haven't heard? Since when we decided to fix the balance with adding more warrior types? I don't remember that either .. Please explain your position without referring to "I wouldnt expect you to.."

I wouldnt expect him because I dont see him discussing anything when we invite him to .. and when we reffer to "it" on the forum, he is clueless.

As for art, here is a very raw piece that i did long time ago as I recall on this forum: http://i.imgur.com/g6zA7.png

[EDMatt]

Maybe its wrong to say we need a new (recycled) unit for balancing issues. It could add a new dimension to the strategies, especially when adding a new building for it. Yes swordfighters are really strong now, but not overpowered. Making them less powerful would not be an option because people won't make them anymore. A counter against them would be really nice as long as this unit won't be abusable, this can be achieved by a certain unit cost.

This is also the main point that I was reffering to, but certian people who are posting here overlooked it.

[Krom]

@Menszu: No mean to hurt your feelings, but this looks not quite the level of KaM. Especially with this scaling/blur.

@EdMatt: Good piece of art, too bad its unfinished ... Would you like finishing it first perhaps? Otherwise some would think you leave the new unit in same unfinished state ...

[EDMatt]

@Menszu: No mean to hurt your feelings, but this looks not quite the level of KaM. Especially with this scaling/blur.

@EdMatt: Good piece of art, too bad its unfinished ... Would you like finishing it first perhaps? Otherwise some would think you leave the new unit in same unfinished state ...

As you said before, it wont be added to the game(this storehouse), so why should I spend anymore time drawing this? for your pleasure?
That is also a reason as to why I made this topic to discuss the new unit.

[The Dark Lord]

Hahaha, seriously?

Lewin and Krom don't know about your discussion either as far as I know. So yeah, go ahead and don't explain anything, that will be a very persuasive strategy. I'm well aware the people on TeamSpeak have played most games in the testing release and therefore have a valuable opinion, but as long as you don't provide arguments with that opinion, it's completely useless, because not everyone on the forum has followed that discussion.

When the shield patch was released everyone was like 'oooh awesome, it's perfect', now we're moaning and crying again because they seem too strong after all (at least that's what you said). But everyone agreed it was better. Now, if they are indeed too strong, wouldn't it be enough to make their attack strength a little lower, something like George_Stain suggested? That's what balancing is, right? Testing (mostly slight) changes until you find the right balance. Not adding completely new units.

Or please tell me if you just want to add a unit 'because you can', because then I understood you completely wrong.

[EDMatt]

Hahaha, seriously?

Lewin and Krom don't know about your discussion either as far as I know. So yeah, go ahead and don't explain anything, that will be a very persuasive strategy. I'm well aware the people on TeamSpeak have played most games in the testing release and therefore have a valuable opinion, but as long as you don't provide arguments with that opinion, it's completely useless, because not everyone on the forum has followed that discussion.

When the shield patch was released everyone was like 'oooh awesome, it's perfect', now we're moaning and crying again because they seem too strong after all (at least that's what you said). But everyone agreed it was better. Now, if they are indeed too strong, wouldn't it be enough to make their attack strength a little lower, something like George_Stain suggested? That's what balancing is, right? Testing (mostly slight) changes until you find the right balance. Not adding completely new units.

Or please tell me if you just want to add a unit 'because you can', because then I understood you completely wrong.

You can read the first 2 pages stating as to why they should be added, but asking question like why they should be added after we have already written our opinion about it is not helping, a better argument would be to ask a quistion , why it shouldnt be added. pressent a logical quiostion and let us answer it.

e.g.: won't this unit break the balance? or how do you want to stop people from spamming the unit?

Would you like me to quote all of the posts on the first 2 pages and present it in 1 post ? so that it will be easier for you to read?

As for your question, on page 1 in this topic you will find your answer.

[Krom]

@EDMatt: I don't remember saying that Arab storehouse is a dead-end idea.

Anyway, I see this topic goes away from picking a unit into a balance discussion. I named the units that would fit the game.

[EDMatt]

@EDMatt: I don't remember saying that Arab storehouse is a dead-end idea.

Anyway, I see this topic goes away from picking a unit into a balance discussion. I named the units that would fit the game.

I havent yet seen anyone preset a valid argument against this unit, while i have seen a number of supporters for my theory and idea in this topic, how can you say that?

EDIT: I missunderstood your statement, the balance right now is how it should be, but there is only so much that you can do with 9 pieces, adding 1 more piece will give another dimension into the game.

Its not like you can have knights countering swordfighters all the time, as sword fighters production is much easier than knight production.
the balance itself is justified as militia is weaker than an axe fighter, a lancer beats a scout, scout beats the axe fighter and the axe fighter beats the lancer.
same goes for iron units, sword fighter beats the pike while the pike beats the knight which beats the sword fighter.

But the only problem in this equation is the top predator (sword fighter) can only be countered by a very expensive unit (knight), we also need 1 more dimention to this we need hard counter for a sword fighter.

So my proposition is as follows:

Add barbarian to the game. why barbarian? the idea behind it is that a barbarian can beat a sword fighter but is very weak against range, this will add for sure another dimention to the rock-paper-scissors kam battle system, because as it is now the only counter for a sword fighter is a sword fighter himself, and in my opinion no one should be forced to play/build in only 1 way , this will enable variety.

So in theory bowmen + barbarian + axe fighters should have a higher chance to defend vs xbow + sword fighters only where as it is now axe fighters + bow men have less chance vs the xbow + sword fighters.

Things will get even more interesting when you have a great mix of different units who have different hard counters.

[pawel95]

EDIT: I missunderstood your statement, the balance right now is how it should be, but there is only so much that you can do with 9 pieces, adding 1 more piece will give another dimension into the game.

Well i think adding sieq equipement will give us a 11 piece. However i hope you mean adding warrior and not barbs

[EDMatt]

EDIT: I missunderstood your statement, the balance right now is how it should be, but there is only so much that you can do with 9 pieces, adding 1 more piece will give another dimension into the game.

Well i think adding sieq equipement will give us a 11 piece. However i hope you mean adding warrior and not barbs

Barbarian is more realistic, because warrior has armor, someone with armor should not die so quickly because of range

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

I've just read a whole bunch of text, but there's one thing I'd like to clarify:

Matt, you can't force people to use TeamSpeak because you want them to. It's their choice, and if you want to discuss things here on the forum that you've already discussed on TeamSpeak that's fine, but you're talking to a different audience here, so you shouldn't assume that people know what you're talking about. Post your idea in whole, not with only half the information. It prevents a lot of misunderstandings and arguments.