Scripting demo release candidate

[EDMatt]

No need to laugh at other's arguments Romo, pawel made a point too so why being so unreceiving to those arguments ?
I don't know wether there is a problem or not, but I just wanted to write it (again ...)

I want to say that according to games where I played or games what I watched your point of view is totaly invalid and I realy have no idea from what kind of games it comes from.

Pawel speaks from his game experience, maybe you play more, or anything, but he can still make a point.
And if he's wrong, try to prove it while not laughing at his argument and being clear, showing that your input is valuable.

But you forgot to mention that it still doesn't change the fact that what he wrote is rather ridiculous.

[Shadaoe]

You are wrong Shadaoe because I am not laughing at his arguments. I want to show him that his point of view is totaly wrong. I know him from TS and i know he is playing and watching many games - in almost every single game there is no place for xbows now. That why I cant understand about what he is talking about.

So if you know he's watching and playing many games, maybe he has a valid argument based on facts, so let him explain it in detail before saying it's a false argument.

But you forgot to mention that it still doesn't change the fact that what he wrote is rather ridiculous.

But you forgot to read my post. I don't favor any position toward that problem (or not), because I don't know it enough (stopped playing many months) to give my opinion. Let me quote the part of my post stating exactly this since it looks like it can be hard to find :

I don't know wether there is a problem or not, but I just wanted to write it (again ...)

So no I didn't forgot to mention it, I chosed to be neutral and tell that taking other's arguments as worthy was good, which touch peoples at different levels.

Anyway I went far too off-topic, sorry and keep the discussion going, since it is an important balance question.

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

In the rc 4 the much text is not readable (dutch) because the words and phrases are too long.
Like in this screenshot.

TextBig.gif

I don't know about other languages and this was only the map editor.
I hope this will change.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

[pawel95]

In the rc 4 the much text is not readable (dutch) because the words and phrases are too long.
Like in this screenshot.

TextBig.gif

I don't know about other languages and this was only the map editor.
I hope this will change.

Yeah I saw that also in the Polish version of RC4 on some buttons, like on the statsscreen, the sentence isnt readable full,because the pol. translatin is too long.

archers are even better because of realoading time so you can micro with them.
It is still much much better to focus on melee iron troops and mass bows.

Wow. The question is how much better . Bowmen are shooting nearly 2 times while an xbow is shooting one time. Its clear that you can spam them better than Xbows like Bludmaster said. However normaly you choose between these 2 systems: Axefighters+Xbows // Swordmen+Bowmen.

I have done some tests with these two groups, pls tell me if it isnt balanced or sth. I think that are 2 makeables armies after 60 Min on normal maps:

1# 40 Axefighters and 30 Crossbowmen. The costs for this army is like:
80 wood, 40 leatherjackets, 60 ironore and 120 coal.

2# 30 Swordmen and like 40 Bowmen. The costs for this army is like:
40 wood, 40 leatherjackets, 90 ironore and 180 coal.

In 5 tests every time the 2# won the game. Sometimes 18 swordmen survived, sometimes "only" 13. Still this is an interesting result, but comparing the costs for these armies show, that you need way more "expensive" recources for 2# than for 1#

The Xbows have no chance against this army of swordmen. The +1 Defence for Shield units works against all ranged units,right? Maybe it would be just enough to give these shield units a lower "defence rate" against xbows, than bowmen?

But you forgot to mention that it still doesn't change the fact that what he wrote is rather ridiculous.

Yes indeed. Somehow I knew that the most valid and best post to that "problem" would come from Mr.EDMATT

and i know he is playing and watching many games

No, not really. Just taking my ideas from the air, but still it was only my first opinion how to solve the problem a little bit and I said it could be worth to tEsT it nothing more,right?!

[WollongongWolf]

archers are even better because of realoading time so you can micro with them.
It is still much much better to focus on melee iron troops and mass bows.

Wow. The question is how much better . Bowmen are shooting nearly 2 times while an xbow is shooting one time. Its clear that you can spam them better than Xbows like Bludmaster said. However normaly you choose between these 2 systems: Axefighters+Xbows // Swordmen+Bowmen.

I have done some tests with these two groups, pls tell me if it isnt balanced or sth. I think that are 2 makeables armies after 60 Min on normal maps:

1# 40 Axefighters and 30 Crossbowmen. The costs for this army is like:
80 wood, 40 leatherjackets, 60 ironore and 120 coal.

2# 30 Swordmen and like 40 Bowmen. The costs for this army is like:
40 wood, 40 leatherjackets, 90 ironore and 180 coal.

In 5 tests every time the 2# won the game. Sometimes 18 swordmen survived, sometimes "only" 13. Still this is an interesting result, but comparing the costs for these armies show, that you need way more "expensive" recources for 2# than for 1#

Considered using equal iron? (so 20 swordsmen) The 40 difference in wood might not be that much (since wood is renewable), while iron and coal are often limited (mainly iron). I also noticed when I tested some troop strengths for myself, the width of the army at the start made a big difference. (just saying can't do it myself as I don't have the beta )

[Lewin]

So it looks like quite a lot of people think bowmen are a better choice than crossbowmen now since we reduced the bowmen reloading/aiming time. If that's true, there are a few ways we could "solve" this:
1. Slightly increase bowmen aiming time (somewhere between now and before when nobody used bowmen)
2. Slightly increase crossbowmen accuracy (or decrease bowmen accuracy)
3. Slightly decrease shields defence bonus against crossbowmen (so they are more armour piercing than bowmen)

I'd like to try and keep some difference between bowmen and crossbowmen. The faster reloading already does that, bowmen are better for fast manoeuvring (move, shoot, move, shoot etc.), crossbowmen are better for staying still and providing continuous fire, more for defensive situations. Because of that I'd rather not take option 1 since that reduces the difference between the units.

I'm interested in hearing more opinions, especially if people think bowmen/crossbowmen are fine as they are right now (I haven't really seen anybody disagree about bowmen being better yet)

Has this only been noticed recently? Because this change to bowmen was made in the so called "shields patch" (r4297) which has been out for ages.

can't do it myself as I don't have the beta )

Anyone is free to join beta testing, just send us your email address.

[pawel95]

I havent tried to distribute the equal number of iron. I just tried to set some typical armies that you often see in the RC´s. SO propably more bowmen are makeable or more swords, I dont know correctly.
However about the widths, you mean how man soldiers are in one row, right? Well I have tested it with nearly equal "widths" so I think there is no case, the swordmen will loose, except some hardcore things, like 1-4 swordmen per row!

So it looks like quite a lot of people think crossbowmen are a better choice than bowmen now since we

The other way round


In my opinion like I said already this would be the best way to try to solve that:

3. Slightly decrease shields defence bonus against crossbowmen (so they are more armour piercing than bowmen)

I wouldnt agree to increase the realoding time of bowmen back(only a little bit) because its pefect now. They are better than crossbowmen against buildings and like you said better for fast movements on the battlefield. However the 2. point could be also tested wich decreasing/increasing accurary,why not.

Well but thats only my opinion/audition, like you said lets hear some more testers

[Lewin]

So it looks like quite a lot of people think crossbowmen are a better choice than bowmen now since we

The other way round

Thanks, I fixed it

[Siegfried]

Quite frankly: I find this hilarious!

Back in time, people demanded nerfing the xbowmen because supposedly they were overpowered and the infantry was considered as 'meat shield' only. There was one big wave of complaint that lead to an upgrade of the 'meat shield'. Supposedly at times no match was possible without a big xbow army.

Now, people have realized that xbowmen became weaker thereby. And suddenly a wave forms demanding their anew improvement. Supposedly xbow is completely useless now.

My call: stop the exaggerations! And try to close Pandora's box again.

[Lewin]

My call: stop the exaggerations! And try to close Pandora's box again.

I agree that there are often exaggerations in balance discussion, and conclusions drawn without any real evidence. However, that doesn't mean there are no balance issues, it just makes them hard to identify because people are quick to jump to conclusions. It's also possible that in trying to fix one issue we go too far and need to scale that back a bit. Multiple iterations are to be expected in order to get balanced and diverse gameplay.

[WollongongWolf]

However about the widths, you mean how man soldiers are in one row, right? Well I have tested it with nearly equal "widths" so I think there is no case, the swordmen will loose, except some hardcore things, like 1-4 swordmen per row!

Yup that I meant, main reason for asking because I tested in the current public release 24 swords vs 36 pikemen (pikemen/lanceman seem to be stronger online, but i was curious about that). Thing is, starting with 6 people per row on both sides, the swords won hard, but 6v9 (so 4 rows on both sides), the pikemen won. (and I'm often just curious how stuff was tested, reproducibility (A)).

In any case, balancing will always be a hard part and it basically just finishes after tonnes of testing, and it might even differ per map. Again, not sure about beta, but I find it annoying to have an archer in a face off killing an xbow. I remember some thread were I saw some damage numbers, but I forgot where In any case, I'd go for archers not being able to 1 shot xbows, perhaps give xbows a bit more defense against archers (if that's possible?). Furthermore I would keep it to extra accuracy.

p.s. expect pm for mail for beta soon

[EDMatt]

So it looks like quite a lot of people think bowmen are a better choice than crossbowmen now since we reduced the bowmen reloading/aiming time. If that's true, there are a few ways we could "solve" this:
1. Slightly increase bowmen aiming time (somewhere between now and before when nobody used bowmen)
2. Slightly increase crossbowmen accuracy (or decrease bowmen accuracy)
3. Slightly decrease shields defence bonus against crossbowmen (so they are more armour piercing than bowmen)

I'd like to try and keep some difference between bowmen and crossbowmen. The faster reloading already does that, bowmen are better for fast manoeuvring (move, shoot, move, shoot etc.), crossbowmen are better for staying still and providing continuous fire, more for defensive situations. Because of that I'd rather not take option 1 since that reduces the difference between the units.

I'm interested in hearing more opinions, especially if people think bowmen/crossbowmen are fine as they are right now (I haven't really seen anybody disagree about bowmen being better yet)

Has this only been noticed recently? Because this change to bowmen was made in the so called "shields patch" (r4297) which has been out for ages.

can't do it myself as I don't have the beta )

Anyone is free to join beta testing, just send us your email address.

The biggest problem with xbow unit is that you cannot efficiently micro with them against much of anything.
when it comes to strategy games it should always come down to micro between the different types of army's and ways that one could have an advantage in certain areas while other has it in other areas, but xbow micro is just pure hard against someone who knows how to control bow men.

In my opinion xbow should be very effective against sword fighters because you are building xbows instead, you will not have sword fighters.
when it comes to xbow vs swords, xbows must have quite a strong counter against swords while bow men will counter xbow in micro as swords are only directly countered (efficiently enough to be called counter) by swords themselves.
So I think the best choice is to have armour pierce against iron units .

While horse having a nice counter vs range

but the xbow should not be strong vs leather axe fighter.

[EDMatt]

So it looks like quite a lot of people think bowmen are a better choice than crossbowmen now since we reduced the bowmen reloading/aiming time. If that's true, there are a few ways we could "solve" this:
1. Slightly increase bowmen aiming time (somewhere between now and before when nobody used bowmen)
2. Slightly increase crossbowmen accuracy (or decrease bowmen accuracy)
3. Slightly decrease shields defence bonus against crossbowmen (so they are more armour piercing than bowmen)

I'd like to try and keep some difference between bowmen and crossbowmen. The faster reloading already does that, bowmen are better for fast manoeuvring (move, shoot, move, shoot etc.), crossbowmen are better for staying still and providing continuous fire, more for defensive situations. Because of that I'd rather not take option 1 since that reduces the difference between the units.

I'm interested in hearing more opinions, especially if people think bowmen/crossbowmen are fine as they are right now (I haven't really seen anybody disagree about bowmen being better yet)

Has this only been noticed recently? Because this change to bowmen was made in the so called "shields patch" (r4297) which has been out for ages.

can't do it myself as I don't have the beta )

Anyone is free to join beta testing, just send us your email address.

The biggest problem with xbow unit is that you cannot efficiently micro with them against much of anything.
when it comes to strategy games it should always come down to micro between the different types of army's and ways that one could have an advantage in certain areas while other has it in other areas, but xbow micro is just pure hard against someone who knows how to control bow men.

In my opinion xbow should be very effective against sword fighters because you are building xbows instead, you will not have sword fighters.
when it comes to xbow vs swords, xbows must have quite a strong counter against swords while bow men will counter xbow in micro as swords are only directly countered (efficiently enough to be called counter) by swords themselves.
So I think the best choice is to have armour pierce against iron units .

While horse having a nice counter vs range

but the xbow should not be strong vs leather axe fighter.

But another good solution is shoot and go back, being able to shoot and go back with xbow but not with bow men, which is probably the best thing .

My first suggestion would change too many things but could fix the problem, while shoot and go back sounds more reasonable .

maybe have some sort of 5 second cool down on immediate shot , then go back and reload, shoot , reload shoot , go back, reload shoot, and cooldown is down and you have 1 more immediate shot .

[Jeronimo]

From Lewin's proposals I will suggest number 2 in paragraphs.

Instead of boosting crossbowmen... making archers less accurate. Because they shoot fast, and hit fast (from what I have seen).
Many times in replays you see the arrow "hitting the ground" but actually kills another swordman... gg.
And even knigths are taken down by archers with alarming speed.

It would be fun to watch archers spam killing own units from time to time because their aim is not so good compared to elite Crossbowmen.
A interesting price to pay if you backup your infantry with mass archers (instead of more accurate crossbowmen).

For Matt and Romo: The change you suggest, allowing better micro with Xbows won't have the impact that is needed.
Archers will keep ruling, because Swordmen/Knights eat Axemen easily... and even mass Pikemen do great vs leather.
Secondly... no matter how much micro you have, leather macro owns theorically (of course you need the building skills to do so).

[EDMatt]

From Lewin's proposals I will suggest number 2 in paragraphs.

Instead of boosting crossbowmen... making archers less accurate. Because they shoot fast, and hit fast (from what I have seen).
Many times in replays you see the arrow "hitting the ground" but actually kills another swordman... gg.
And even knigths are taken down by archers with alarming speed.

It would be fun to watch archers spam killing own units from time to time because their aim is not so good compared to elite Crossbowmen.
A interesting price to pay if you backup your infantry with mass archers (instead of more accurate crossbowmen).

For Matt and Romo: The change you suggest, allowing better micro with Xbows won't have the impact that is needed.
Archers will keep ruling, because Swordmen/Knights eat Axemen easily... and even mass Pikemen do great vs leather.
Secondly... no matter how much micro you have, leather macro owns theorically (of course you need the building skills to do so).

If you make archers less accurate, it will make the game less micro oriented and easier, as it is already easy enough, and at times nothing to do in micro fights, i think it is a bad decision and a bad suggestion, Jeronimo