Balance testing release r4297

[Mulberry]

Lewin said 29.12.2012: It doesn't take long to make a new release, and balance changes are usually quick to implement.

How soon can we expect changes we were talking during last month? We really need these "quick" changes.

[Lewin]

Lewin said 29.12.2012: It doesn't take long to make a new release, and balance changes are usually quick to implement.

How soon can we expect changes we were talking during last month? We really need these "quick" changes.

Which changes? There's only two changes made so far:
- Trunks slightly less valuable
- Farmers more efficient at sharing corn fields

Do you think that's worth doing a new balance test release? Or were you expecting other changes too? Please remind me if I forgot about any. Once we've finished a few more features and fixed some known bugs we can start RC testing all the new features we've been working on (that will be more bug testing than balance testing though).

[Bo_]

As far as I understood the 'patches' would be all about very little changes so we could have very accurate results while testing,
so if it doesn't take any time to put every single change in a patch then I guess it is worth a new RC.

[Jeronimo]

I think is too early for a new release test.
I'd rather wait for more upgrades to game such as:

> New Resources graphs, at the end of statistics (I guess Krom is in charge of this, since he asked me a sketch of the idea).
> The whole issue about labourers, not being able to fieldflood (probably Krom is working on this too).
> Soldiers being fed only if their condition is below 33% (and not currently 80%, which makes lots of soldiers being unnecessary fed, thus a less effective distribution of food among soldiers).
> Number representation of troops in 1 selected squad (same as in Editor, a central yellow number shows amount of soldiers).

As you see there are many things to improve, some of higher priority, but all important and actively positive for the game.

[Da Revolution]

I do think a new test release would be nice so we can start testing effective farms asap.

The changes you said are really not that important jeronimo, only the anti builder rush part would be nice. The other things are really not that important whether they are tested asap or not.

[Jeronimo]

I do remember now, that Lewin was working on how to resolve the "halt and fire", and maybe... improving "charge" function.

Then there was an idea about Combat Hotkeys, such as + - for adding/removing lines to formation, and X for charge.

Lewin/Krom are always the first testers of their works, so it may take a while for us to meet those changes.
A new RC comes to us, after they are sure they have reduced most bugs possibilities in the new additions.

In this stages of development, I suggest to give Lewin/Krom the appropiate time they need, and not rushing any RC just because testers are again a little "bored" of their playstyles.
Besides Lewin preety clear wrote that there are very few additions so far, is not that there are few ideas, but that the time for polishing each one is uncertain.

Mulberry, take it easy.
Going or not for leather army/horses is more a personal decision, than a technical deficience related to farms.
We surely know that better farms may change current situation, but only a "little".
Do not expect a revelation, because it's basically about the map design and the players you combine with (if going mass leather/horses is a good or bad decision). Listen to Romek, he opins similar.

[Mulberry]

Lewin said 29.12.2012: It doesn't take long to make a new release, and balance changes are usually quick to implement.

How soon can we expect changes we were talking during last month? We really need these "quick" changes.

Which changes? There's only two changes made so far:
- Trunks slightly less valuable
- Farmers more efficient at sharing corn fields

Do you think that's worth doing a new balance test release? Or were you expecting other changes too? Please remind me if I forgot about any. Once we've finished a few more features and fixed some known bugs we can start RC testing all the new features we've been working on (that will be more bug testing than balance testing though).

+ shoot and halt
+ builder rush

Yes i think it worth new testing realese very much. Farms efficiency and market values are very important for testing balance. I wish i can try it.

Please take a look over these values . I've made few suggestions(in brackets):

Tree truncks - iron ore, 1 for 1 (would be better if it was 3 truncks for 1 ore, 2 is abuseable)
Tree truncks - gold ore, 1 for 1 (would be better if it was 2-3 truncks for 1 ore)
Tree truncks - coal, 1 for 1 (would be better if it was 2 truncks for 1 coal)
Tree truncks - iron bar, 3 for 1 (would be better if it was 5 truncks for 1 iron bar)
Tree truncks - gold chests, 2 for 1 (would be better if it was 4 truncks for 1 chest)
Tree truncks - iron weapons, 4-5 for 1 (would be better to increase)
Tree truncks - horse, 6 for 1 (would be better if it was 8-9 truncks for 1 horse)
Tree truncks - grain, 1 for 1 (would be better 2 truncks for 1 grain)
Tree truncks - bread, 1 for 1 (would be better 2 truncks for 1 bread, to compare: sausage costs 2 truncks, wine 1 trunck, it affects flour too)
Leather - iron bars, iron ore. (i think should be increased)
Gold chests - flour, 2 for 1 (maybe 3 for 1?)

[Romek]

I agree with Mully idea. But what I think is that horse trade should be totaly blocked in market. Even if you will not abuse horse trade you still have option to buy few for scout map as fast as possible. 8-9 trunks for one is still like nothing compared to vision on whole map just before PT.

[EDMatt]

I agree with Mully idea. But what I think is that horse trade should be totaly blocked in market. Even if you will not abuse horse trade you still have option to buy few for scout map as fast as possible. 8-9 trunks for one is still like nothing compared to vision on whole map just before PT.

I dont think so.
if you can trade for one resource, why should others be blocked?

[Lewin]

+ shoot and halt

This requires the latest version of the code with the complete rewrite of soldier handling. We'll do an RC for this version eventually but right now we're still finishing off features and fixing bugs.

+ builder rush

We don't have a solution for this yet, from what I remember none of the solutions discussed were very satisfactory, they all had quite serious problems. What is your idea to fix it?

Yes i think it worth new testing realese very much. Farms efficiency and market values are very important for testing balance. I wish i can try it.

Well I think we'll wait until we have a few more changes made. The RC testing for the next release will probably require 2-3 RCs in order to fix all of the new bugs that have been introduced by the changes. That should be enough time to judge the balance of stuff like that.

Please take a look over these values . I've made few suggestions(in brackets):

Tree truncks - iron ore, 1 for 1 (would be better if it was 3 truncks for 1 ore, 2 is abuseable)
Tree truncks - gold ore, 1 for 1 (would be better if it was 2-3 truncks for 1 ore)
Tree truncks - coal, 1 for 1 (would be better if it was 2 truncks for 1 coal)
Tree truncks - iron bar, 3 for 1 (would be better if it was 5 truncks for 1 iron bar)
Tree truncks - gold chests, 2 for 1 (would be better if it was 4 truncks for 1 chest)
Tree truncks - iron weapons, 4-5 for 1 (would be better to increase)
Tree truncks - horse, 6 for 1 (would be better if it was 8-9 truncks for 1 horse)
Tree truncks - grain, 1 for 1 (would be better 2 truncks for 1 grain)
Tree truncks - bread, 1 for 1 (would be better 2 truncks for 1 bread, to compare: sausage costs 2 truncks, wine 1 trunck, it affects flour too)
Leather - iron bars, iron ore. (i think should be increased)
Gold chests - flour, 2 for 1 (maybe 3 for 1?)

Some of the prices are more expensive than before, but not as much as you suggested.
Is 2 trunks -> 1 ore really abusable? It takes ~4 (more like 3.8) woodcutters trading at that rate to generate the same output as just 1 iron or gold mine. 4 woodcutters need space and resources to build and all those trunks need to be carried around by serfs. Remember that the reverse trade should be equally as bad/good. Is 3 ore/coal -> 1 trunk abusable? If the trade is abusable in both directions it means we need to increase the overall market loss ratio. We recently discussed reverting it back 2.5 (the balance release reduced it to 2.0):
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1282&p=21076#p21076
What do people think about that?

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

God I hate builder rushes. In my eyes, a sign of weakness. One way to fix it might be to prevent builders to build x squares from enemy buildings.

[Lewin]

God I hate builder rushes. In my eyes, a sign of weakness. One way to fix it might be to prevent builders to build x squares from enemy buildings.

Something like this is probably the best solution, although I think we could limit it to just "not allowed to build within range of a completed enemy tower". The problem is that in a map like The Valley of Dangers you could block your enemy by building a tower in the valley... but maybe that's not such a big deal because the tower would kill the laborers anyway.
It also won't stop builder rushes if people have explored to somewhere past the enemy towers because they can just build there instead...

[EDMatt]

God I hate builder rushes. In my eyes, a sign of weakness. One way to fix it might be to prevent builders to build x squares from enemy buildings.

Something like this is probably the best solution, although I think we could limit it to just "not allowed to build within range of a completed enemy tower". The problem is that in a map like The Valley of Dangers you could block your enemy by building a tower in the valley... but maybe that's not such a big deal because the tower would kill the laborers anyway.
It also won't stop builder rushes if people have explored to somewhere past the enemy towers because they can just build there instead...

And do the same for building towers, have a radius restriction between each tower.

[sado1]

If you mean: between each tower of the same player, then I dunno if it makes sense...

If you mean: between your tower and enemy's tower, you need to go *cut*. Before you do that though, you should write an essay on why does Anti's solution already include your proposition. Unless you mean: radiuses of towers should not interfere, in which case you also should *cut*, because this would destroy TVOD2 (tower wars) completely (Anti's solution makes it just a bit different but acceptable I think...)

[Krom]

Tower wars are certainly better to avoid.