KaM Remake gameplay balance

[EDMatt]

Yes, but the fact that 2 Scouts can fight up to 15 minutes and longer (given good random streak) does not makes it very nice. It's nice to see your militia kills barbarian in campaign mission, but it's very disappointing seeing it happen vice versa. I agree with Sid Meyer GDC 2010 speech - player wants to see "good" randoms that look fair, not the mathematically correct "randoms". It's especially important in MP where players compete with their skills, not with a rolling dice. Random is needed, but it would be better if it were a little more fair. Similar to arrows hitting targets out of range due to random jitter, random allows that, but we fixed it in favor of players experience. I don't rush to implement suggested changes "as is" as they are clearly flawed, but I would like that everyone gave them a deeper look and analysis and maybe pushed research further.

I agree, the idea is worth pursuing to see if the flaws can be better resolved. Maybe it can be designed so that the KaM feeling is maintained. Maybe there could be a maximum/minimum amount of damage inflicted with each strike, so kind of like the current system but instead of only doing 0 or 1 damage, they can do somewhere between 0 and 1, e.g. 0.36. But you can't do 4 damage and kill a unit in one blow, 1 is the maximum so it still takes the normal number of strikes to kill a unit.

Now this sounds like a solution to me!
Come on guys, better start testing this out!

[Lewin]

Ah, what are we , in kinder-garden ?

Not insulting is a sign of respect for others. Which part do you not approve?

You know Siegfried, life is too short to be nice to everyone.
Think about that.

If you can't take the time to be polite in your arguments, others should not have to take the time to read what you wrote.
There's nothing wrong with saying you disagree with someone because you think they don't play the game enough to form an opinion, but you must be polite in your arguments. You'll get a lot further through polite, effective arguments than by insulting. You'll also gain a lot more respect in the community.

On this forum you must either find time in your life to be nice to others, or not post at all. We want constructive arguments, those are the most helpful to Krom and I as developers. Insults and disrespect towards others will not be tolerated.

Ah, what are we , in kinder-garden ?

No, we're on a moderated forum that aims to produce constructive discussions to help development of the KaM Remake. Insults do the exact opposite, they make people not want to post their ideas because they will just be yelled at and/or insulted rather than people responding with polite criticism/arguments. That means less people want to use the forums, which means less fresh ideas and less balanced discussion. In the end that's bad for our community and bad for the development of the KaM Remake.

[Bo_]

If you can't take the time to be polite in your arguments, others should not have to take the time to read what you wrote.
There's nothing wrong with saying you disagree with someone because you think they don't play the game enough to form an opinion, but you must be polite in your arguments. You'll get a lot further through polite, effective arguments than by insulting. You'll also gain a lot more respect in the community.

Well indeed, nobody has to read my arguments. But my arguments are polite and constructive, what bothers me, I've used the experience-factor in a polite way but it makes no sence, their contra-argument is: Replays and experience prove nothing. When you're inviting them to a game they don't want to, because it proves nothing. Why should I care about keeping polite? Not because I respect that argument, because I don't.
About respect of the community, I know who respects me and who doesn't, wich is enough for me.

On this forum you must either find time in your life to be nice to others, or not post at all. We want constructive arguments, those are the most helpful to Krom and I as developers. Insults and disrespect towards others will not be tolerated.

Totally kinder-garden. We use constructive agruments, and we reply on a constructive way until it makes no sence anymore.
But if you mean that the person who keeps polite the longest, is the person who's right? Then think about that.
There's also a difference between trolling and insults. The use of trolling is to see things from another perspective, and to take everything not too seriously.
That doesn't mean you're realy insulting people.

[Lewin]

Why should I care about keeping polite? Not because I respect that argument, because I don't.

You should care about being polite because that's the rules of this forum. We want structured debate here, not insults. If you want to insult people go somewhere else and do it, don't use the forum for that. Of course there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone and explaining why you disagree, but if you can't present your point of politely then please don't present it here at all.
Of course you don't have to agree with/respect their argument at all, but you should argue against it constructively and with respect towards the person, not with insults.

Imagine if there was some big convention where they have debates about various topics. If I jumped up on the stage and started insulting people just because I disagreed with them I'd be removed from the convention, since it's designed to have polite debates. The forum is somewhat like that. If you disagree with someone, you can explain it politely. But you don't have to post at all if you can't manage that.

Totally kinder-garden. We use constructive agruments, and we reply on a constructive way until it makes no sence anymore.
But if you mean that the person who keeps polite the longest, is the person who's right? Then think about that.

I agree a lot of what you and others have written has been very constructive and well written. You/others have politely explained why you don't agree with Pepa. But there's also been insults, and that's what I'm referring to.
Staying polite doesn't make make your ideas/arguments correct at all, but it makes you the kind of person we want on this forum.

There's also a difference between trolling and insults. The use of trolling is to see things from another perspective, and to take everything not too seriously.
That doesn't mean you're realy insulting people.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, the insults I've referred to in the past didn't look like trolling to me.

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

So for the moderator who edited this:
Well more people give positive response about what Matt said than about Pepa, so don't abuse on the fact that you're moderator to try to give a public oppinion.
IMO that's just pathetic.

You don't really know what a MODBREAK is, do you?

I've deleted part of his reply and replaced it with the red text. I wasn't replying to him by editing his own post.

Replies like yours don't help anyone, certainly if you don't know what you're talking about.

Edit: I've cleaned up the topic but this is the last time we tolerate this kind of behavior. Stay ON TOPIC or this topic will be closed until further notice and measures will be taken.
Come on guys, it's not that hard to discuss the actual game.

[Bo_]

Honestly I do know what MODBREAK means. Don't worry about that.
I think you didn't get my point, but let's not talk about it, you're the moderator, you're right.

[Lewin]

Honestly I do know what MODBREAK means. Don't worry about that.
I think you didn't get my point, but let's not talk about it, you're the moderator, you're right.

The part that was deleted was completely off topic and insulting. I don't understand what your problem is. The on topic bit was NOT removed, which was actually where Matt's argument was presented. How is that trying to change people's opinions? It's just keeping the forum clean, focused and polite. That's the role of a moderator.
If anything, removing the bit at the end gave more credibility to what Matt wrote.

[Bo_]

I didn't say he changed what Matt said. I'm just saying that if he wanted to write 'Nobody cares', he shouldn't have done that in a Modbreak. But again, let's not talk about that it makes no sense, this is going off-topic again.

[Jeronimo]

Jeronimo changed a bit his previous suggestions

a-1) Shields: It would be possible implementing something like +0.5 hp for units with shield?
I don't know if decimals are allowed in HP terms (tough I see many decimals in Arrows calculations).

a-2) Shields: Instead of life... What if units with shield have regeneration +1 hp x 7 secs?
These 7 secs (instead of default 10) can make big groups of shielded troops last longer against enemy firepower.
So if units have 3 hp +1/3 faster regeneration, a few will emulate having 4 hp during a fight (vs militia/lancers mass).

b) Archers: I find them overall fine, just that in practise you know you can withdraw Xbows easier if offensive went wrong.
So these units could be sligthty better... I have a hunch about what to modify.
Lewin wrote-> Chance that the arrow will miss:
For bowmen: Chance to miss = 0.26+(2*target_speed)
For crossbowmen: Chance to miss = 0.29+(2*target_speed)

What could happen if bowmen = 0.24+(2*target_speed)?
I feel that 0.05 significative difference compared to Xbow, could be useful.

c) Storm Attack: First, troops accomadate into leader's direction (1,5 sec) and next all charge together.
But we need some bonus... An idea is giving a Multiplier x2 to first attack, called CHARGE IMPACT.
Militia/Axemen-> x2 (35x2=70 dmg)
Swordman-> x2 (55x2=110 dmg)
Now this charge impact is even more dangerous depending which side of enemy unit you are hitting.
So if the charge hits enemy unit's flank, initial attack instead of x3, will be x3(x2)=x6 [Swordman inflicts 330 dmg]

[-George Stain-]

Hello, please check this ideas and bring some constructive criticism.

Thx guys, G.S.

[Leeuwgie]

Hello, please check this ideas and bring some constructive criticism.

Thx guys, G.S.

I must admit that instead of playing the latest beta we find ourselves playing the shield patch all the time. It's just so much better. Finally we see axemen being used again as the main melee troops instead of mass lancers. And swordmen now actually own on the battlefield like they should. Instead of using 2 or 3 types of troops I now train 6 types. I personaly think we should add it in the upcomming release so other people could enjoy it too.

George, your idea is simply excellent, very well worked out. If the troops with a shield keep their attack but are 33% more resistant to arrows I think the problem is solved. I do think it's not neccesary to buff miltia. They have no shield and are already effective the way they are now.

Here is a screen of 17 swordmen engaging 20 axemen and 16 militia (both backup up by archers, although I had some more then my opponent)


This screen shows I had 9 left after the battle:


I saved the last 2 replays to share with you (shield patch required to watch):

http://www.mediafire.com/?wqvuuewjx9pquq1
http://www.mediafire.com/?16kqa61jiaqpn4g

To

[Bo_]

Hello, please check this ideas and bring some constructive criticism.

Thx guys, G.S.

Well very nicely worked out, this is the way it should be.
You told me about -33% attack, I didn't realy know what it meant, it sounds good, longer battle like we discussed, but wouldn't less attack mean that in the core battle (Axefighters, swordfighters, range) will still depend mainly on how many range you have? While the amount of meat is less important. I explain myself:
Since 1 axefighter has - 33% attack, and +33% hp, it will take 1 axefighter around 66% longer to kill or get killed by another axefighter, while it takes only 33% longer for a range unit to kill him. I don't say it isn't a good thing, longer battles, more time to retreat, more time to reinforce, more time for the team to help, but I just wanted to let you notice, it should be tested to tell us if it's good or not.
But yes, I think this could balance the patch, wich was realy a great step forward IMO.

- A note for archers, instead of increasing their attack power, I think it should be better to just increase accuracy, and decrease attack slightly. Why?
Archers a way too random now, 10% hit change... In big amounts that's ok but in small amounts, for micro battle it's just about luck. So for example:
Accuracy up to 25%, attack power reduced to 30pt. So this would make time a bit stronger, but less random in small amounts...
And for people who claim archers to be useless, their random target is very useful, when you can't flank it's the best way of killing enemy xbow, since xbow will keep hitting the closest target.

I personaly think we should add it in the upcomming release so other people could enjoy it too.

That's what I proposed too, except that the discussions didn't turn out very well.

[Lewin]

I agree with the diagram of units and arrows in George Stain's image, (I think we should aim for balance like the diagram shows) but I think there's a much simpler and better way to achieve it. I don't like the idea of reducing the attack of swordfighters/axemen, I think that can have other negative consequences. Let me explain my idea.

In the normal Remake (i.e. without the shields patch) we already have a working paper-scissors-rock system between melee, anti-horse and mounted as Krom showed: Swords defeat pikes, pikes defeat knights, knights defeat swords. I don't think there is a problem with the balance between these units if you assume they are of equal cost, it already matches the red/green lines in George's diagram (ignoring archers/costs) The only problem here is that some are cheaper than others with not enough advantage for expensive units.

When we factor archers back into the equation we find that they are equally good against swords/pikes. They are slightly worse against knights, but not much considering knights are the most expensive unit.

So that only leaves two problems:
1. Archers are equally good against swords/pikes, which does not fit with George's arrows diagram.
2. Swords are expensive but with no major advantage over pikes, they still fit equally into the paper-scissors-rock.

The solution:
Make units with shields have more defence against arrows (+1). This means swords are preferable as a meatshield/primary battle soldiers because they absorb more arrows, but crucially it doesn't disrupt the already balanced paper-scissors-rock between the non-ranged units. IMO the problem with the old +1hp shields patch was it also effected melee combat, which was already fairly balanced.

These are the effects of adding 1 defence against to swordfighters, axefighters, scouts and knights:
Axefighters/scouts:
Chance of a crossbow hit injuring: Old: 120/2=60%. New = 120/3 = 40%.
Chance of an arrow injuring: Old: 60/2 = 30%. New = 60/3 = 20%.

Swordfighters/knights:
Chance of a crossbow hit injuring: Old: 120/3=40%. New = 120/4 = 30%.
Chance of an arrow injuring: Old: 60/3 = 20%. New = 60/4 = 15%.

This change is actually similar to the original +1 hp shields patch, but it only affects ranged units, the HP change effected melee and ranged.

IMO this change will achieve George Stain's diagram without having having any effect on the melee/paper-scissors-rock balance which doesn't seem to have any problems. People have already said that lance carriers are good because you can mass them and they work just as well for a meatshield. Well if axefighters/swordfighters are better as a meatshield (and they're already better in attack) then that will make them worth using.


What do you think?

[Krom]

Sounds good, except for the part of balancing ranged units to melee ones - we can't setup a sterile environment for a test, tactics dominates over math here. So we need to make this changes iteratively and leave plenty of time for tests and feedback.

[-George Stain-]

The solution:
Make units with shields have more defence against arrows (+1). This means swords are preferable as a meatshield/primary battle soldiers because they absorb more arrows, but crucially it doesn't disrupt the already balanced paper-scissors-rock between the non-ranged units. IMO the problem with the old +1hp shields patch was it also effected melee combat, which was already fairly balanced.

These are the effects of adding 1 defence against to swordfighters, axefighters, scouts and knights:
Axefighters/scouts:
Chance of a crossbow hit injuring: Old: 120/2=60%. New = 120/3 = 40%.
Chance of an arrow injuring: Old: 60/2 = 30%. New = 60/3 = 20%.

Swordfighters/knights:
Chance of a crossbow hit injuring: Old: 120/3=40%. New = 120/4 = 30%.
Chance of an arrow injuring: Old: 60/3 = 20%. New = 60/4 = 15%.

You are right, all my changes are becouse I thought that you dont want do this simple change or I thought that is impossible to do this (It has beed discused many times, so I lost my hope for this change) ..
If it is possible, so it may be the Best solution for shield units..

and guys, what do you think about more cavalry on battlefield? I think that is very important .. becouse more cavalry = more Lancers and Pikes..

1. cavalry is good solution for countering foot shield units (in this moment, is very hard to have passable group of cavalry, for efective countering, but polearm units are very easy way everytime on every maps)

2. if will be axefighter and swordsman "back in the game" ... players are needing effective counter, this mean usable cavalery..

3. it is over and over again. ... > archers, shield infantry > polearm infantry > cavalery > archers, shield infantry > ...

BTW thank you all for dicsussion about these ideas