Reducing the Power of 3rd level units
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Reducing the Power of 3rd level units
We've talked some about reducing the power of upper level units. Although I disagreed with alot of things Jetryl said in another thread about keeping units alive, thinking about it, I do think he had a good point: the attack power of level 3 units is too high at the moment.
I asked crimson_penguin to write me a script which analyzes the power of attacks across levels. We came up with the concepts of 'attack power', 'primary attack', a 'secondary attack', with the following definitions:
attack power: the number of attacks times the damage each attack does
primary attack: a unit's attack that has the most power
secondary attack: if the unit's primary attack is melee, then this is their most powerful ranged attack. If the unit's primary attack is ranged, then this is their most powerful melee attack. Units with no secondary attack are considered to have a secondary attack power of 0.
crimson_penguin's script came up with the following interesting information:
There are 3 level 0 units with an average primary attack of 6, an average secondary attack of 0, and 17 hp.
There are 54 level 1 units with an average primary attack of 16, an average secondary attack of 3, and 32 hp.
There are 52 level 2 units with an average primary attack of 27, an average secondary attack of 7, and 45 hp.
There are 37 level 3 units with an average primary attack of 43, an average secondary attack of 15, and 61 hp.
There are 3 level 4 units with an average primary attack of 70, an average secondary attack of 14, and 101 hp.
And of course Delfador is our only level 5 unit.
Looking at these stats, a couple of things are glaring:
- the jump from level 2 -> level 3 is bigger than the jump from level 1 -> level 2.
- attack power increases faster than hitpoints do. The average power of level 1 unit's primary weapons are exactly half of their hitpoints. The average power of level 2 units primary weapons are 60% of their hitpoints. For level 3 units, it's 70%.
I think that we should make the jump from level 2 -> level 3 about the same as the jump from level 1 -> level 2. I also think we should tone down the attack power of all upper level units to make the hp : attack strength proportions closer to their first level equivalents.
That is to say, I propose:
level 3 units should have their hitpoints reduced by around 5% each.
level 3 units should have their attack strength reduced by around 25% each.
level 2 units should have their attack strength reduced by around 15% each.
This will make 3rd level units still powerful, but reduce their power as 'super units' somewhat. Note that although we are largely reducing attack strength, and not hitpoints here, this will make 3rd level units substantially easier to kill by 1st level units, since they won't be able to hit back nearly so hard.
I also tend to think that this will make the campaigns harder, rather than easier, since players usually fight against 1st and 2nd level units in the campaigns, while it's the player who has 3rd level units.
Any thoughts on these changes?
David
I asked crimson_penguin to write me a script which analyzes the power of attacks across levels. We came up with the concepts of 'attack power', 'primary attack', a 'secondary attack', with the following definitions:
attack power: the number of attacks times the damage each attack does
primary attack: a unit's attack that has the most power
secondary attack: if the unit's primary attack is melee, then this is their most powerful ranged attack. If the unit's primary attack is ranged, then this is their most powerful melee attack. Units with no secondary attack are considered to have a secondary attack power of 0.
crimson_penguin's script came up with the following interesting information:
There are 3 level 0 units with an average primary attack of 6, an average secondary attack of 0, and 17 hp.
There are 54 level 1 units with an average primary attack of 16, an average secondary attack of 3, and 32 hp.
There are 52 level 2 units with an average primary attack of 27, an average secondary attack of 7, and 45 hp.
There are 37 level 3 units with an average primary attack of 43, an average secondary attack of 15, and 61 hp.
There are 3 level 4 units with an average primary attack of 70, an average secondary attack of 14, and 101 hp.
And of course Delfador is our only level 5 unit.
Looking at these stats, a couple of things are glaring:
- the jump from level 2 -> level 3 is bigger than the jump from level 1 -> level 2.
- attack power increases faster than hitpoints do. The average power of level 1 unit's primary weapons are exactly half of their hitpoints. The average power of level 2 units primary weapons are 60% of their hitpoints. For level 3 units, it's 70%.
I think that we should make the jump from level 2 -> level 3 about the same as the jump from level 1 -> level 2. I also think we should tone down the attack power of all upper level units to make the hp : attack strength proportions closer to their first level equivalents.
That is to say, I propose:
level 3 units should have their hitpoints reduced by around 5% each.
level 3 units should have their attack strength reduced by around 25% each.
level 2 units should have their attack strength reduced by around 15% each.
This will make 3rd level units still powerful, but reduce their power as 'super units' somewhat. Note that although we are largely reducing attack strength, and not hitpoints here, this will make 3rd level units substantially easier to kill by 1st level units, since they won't be able to hit back nearly so hard.
I also tend to think that this will make the campaigns harder, rather than easier, since players usually fight against 1st and 2nd level units in the campaigns, while it's the player who has 3rd level units.
Any thoughts on these changes?
David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
-
Sangel
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: March 26th, 2004, 10:58 pm
- Location: New York, New York
No thank you, for several reasons.
You noted that 3rd Level Units have an "attack power" of about 70% of their HP, as opposed to 50% for 1st Level Units. This is exactly the way I feel it should be - combat between powerful units should be a fast, furious business, with both sides taking and dealing large amounts of damage.
I like 3rd level units being powerful. They're not super-units currently - I routinely use even tough units like Troll Warriors if I'm not careful with them - and I think it's right that you should have to fear them when you're using lower levels units.
Secondly, and critically, we're having difficulty problems in the campaign as it is. The recent AI improvements (not including grouping, which either makes the AI insanely tough or insanely stupid, with no middle ground) have exacerbated the already hard difficulty of Wesnoth, and we need to see it toned down considerably before we can even think of doing anything to make it more difficult.
I see no reason why my (highly intelligent) younger brother should get his teeth routinely kicked in on Easy, which is what happens right now.
You noted that 3rd Level Units have an "attack power" of about 70% of their HP, as opposed to 50% for 1st Level Units. This is exactly the way I feel it should be - combat between powerful units should be a fast, furious business, with both sides taking and dealing large amounts of damage.
I like 3rd level units being powerful. They're not super-units currently - I routinely use even tough units like Troll Warriors if I'm not careful with them - and I think it's right that you should have to fear them when you're using lower levels units.
Secondly, and critically, we're having difficulty problems in the campaign as it is. The recent AI improvements (not including grouping, which either makes the AI insanely tough or insanely stupid, with no middle ground) have exacerbated the already hard difficulty of Wesnoth, and we need to see it toned down considerably before we can even think of doing anything to make it more difficult.
I see no reason why my (highly intelligent) younger brother should get his teeth routinely kicked in on Easy, which is what happens right now.
"Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit." - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
While the game is below version 1.0 in particular, decisions that affect the long-term quality of the game versus features affecting players in the short-term are heavily weighted toward favoring the game in the long term. That's the nature of a 'beta', and players should expect that.Sangel wrote: Secondly, and critically, we're having difficulty problems in the campaign as it is. The recent AI improvements (not including grouping, which either makes the AI insanely tough or insanely stupid, with no middle ground) have exacerbated the already hard difficulty of Wesnoth, and we need to see it toned down considerably before we can even think of doing anything to make it more difficult.
I see no reason why my (highly intelligent) younger brother should get his teeth routinely kicked in on Easy, which is what happens right now.
If your objections are largely based on it making the campaigns harder, I think it'd be better to find ways to soften the impact of the changes immediately, or delay the changes until we can rebalance the campaigns a little more. But we're not going to not implement this at all because of the way it'll affect campaigns in the short term.
David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
Nerfing units is rarely popular, but sometimes it's the right thing to do. It will make the game harder, which I agree is probably not a good thing with the current difficulty, especially for newer players.
The problem with 3rd level characters is that due to the nature of Wesnoth, an experience player may have 20 level 3 characters by the 8th level of a campaign, whereas another player may have 10. This can make a big difference in the difficulty of the game, and such tinkering with levcel 3 characters can be dangerous.
I actually often only play with a few level 3 characters and a lot more level 1 and 2, becuase I'm constantly trying to level up units, except on the really difficult scenarios.
I haven't played enough to know, but I'd be careful of nerfing level 3 characters, we've spent so much time getting them to level 3 (some units like mages require a lot of experience), they're supposed to be powerful.
The problem with 3rd level characters is that due to the nature of Wesnoth, an experience player may have 20 level 3 characters by the 8th level of a campaign, whereas another player may have 10. This can make a big difference in the difficulty of the game, and such tinkering with levcel 3 characters can be dangerous.
I actually often only play with a few level 3 characters and a lot more level 1 and 2, becuase I'm constantly trying to level up units, except on the really difficult scenarios.
I haven't played enough to know, but I'd be careful of nerfing level 3 characters, we've spent so much time getting them to level 3 (some units like mages require a lot of experience), they're supposed to be powerful.
-
jbmesserly
For reference, the "toned down" statistics would be:
Level 1 units: average primary attack of 16, average secondary attack of 3, and 32 hp. Average primary attack is 50% the average hp.
Level 2 units: average primary attack of 23, average secondary attack of 6, and 45 hp. Average primary attack is 50% the average hp.
Level 3 units: average primary attack of 32.25, average secondary attack of 11.25, and 58 hp. Average primary attack is 56% the average hp.
Level 1 units: average primary attack of 16, average secondary attack of 3, and 32 hp. Average primary attack is 50% the average hp.
Level 2 units: average primary attack of 23, average secondary attack of 6, and 45 hp. Average primary attack is 50% the average hp.
Level 3 units: average primary attack of 32.25, average secondary attack of 11.25, and 58 hp. Average primary attack is 56% the average hp.
-
Sangel
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: March 26th, 2004, 10:58 pm
- Location: New York, New York
Well, waiting longer may make changing things more difficult. But I agree fully with this statement - we need to get the difficulty rebalanced before we do any more tinkering which will affect it. As the profusion of "Wesnoth is too hard!" topics indicate, this is currently an area of concern.Dave wrote: If your objections are largely based on it making the campaigns harder, I think it'd be better to find ways to soften the impact of the changes immediately, or delay the changes until we can rebalance the campaigns a little more. But we're not going to not implement this at all because of the way it'll affect campaigns in the short term.
David
"Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit." - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
-
jbmesserly
Dave: I agree, this change should be made. Third level units need their attack strength decreased.
To everyone concerned about campaign difficulty: over-powered third level units are exacerbating the balance problem. It's impossible to balance a scenario for both a player with lots of third level units and a player with few third level units. Scenarios are either a breeze, or nearly impossible. This is not a good situation.
Currently, successful campaigning requires hording third level units. This leads us players to keeping 3rd level units alive at all costs. Naturally, any toning down of these units will be met with resistance.
Keep in mind the big picture. Once third level units are weakened, we can balance scenarios so they are winnable without an army of overpowered units.
To everyone concerned about campaign difficulty: over-powered third level units are exacerbating the balance problem. It's impossible to balance a scenario for both a player with lots of third level units and a player with few third level units. Scenarios are either a breeze, or nearly impossible. This is not a good situation.
Currently, successful campaigning requires hording third level units. This leads us players to keeping 3rd level units alive at all costs. Naturally, any toning down of these units will be met with resistance.
Keep in mind the big picture. Once third level units are weakened, we can balance scenarios so they are winnable without an army of overpowered units.
While you're at it. . .
Why not ramp up the per turn cost of having a 3rd level unit in the field, and lower the effect of 'loyal' at higher levels. As it stands, it is very difficult to find the difficulty sweet spot over a series of scenarios, mostly because of the # of 3rd level units on a recall list can change the dynamics a lot. Making those units more costly to field would (probably) reduce this variability because: a) the turns bonus for deploying 15 lv 3 units and wiping a level would be offset by the turn by turn cost of those units in the field. This would help scenario designers get a better, and less variable, feel for what the par amount of gold in a scenario should be. As it stands now, over say 15 scenarios, things tend to go almost exponential in one direction or the other. But eventually it will always result in 'near' exponential growth, as most players will go back a couple of scenarios to prevent an exponential slide.
Note to forum users: You are in a maze of twisty little passages
-
Sangel
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: March 26th, 2004, 10:58 pm
- Location: New York, New York
Making the cost of recalling units dependant on their level has been suggested before, and I think it's quite a good idea, actually. Perhaps the recall cost could be !5, where ! represents the level of the unit. That way you'd get 15 to recall a level one unit, 25 to recall a level two, 35 for a level 3, and 45 for a level four.
"Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit." - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Erl,
wesnoth.log-20031128.gz
[19:11] <miyo> ziberpunk: Very high levels easily introduce uber units... at least if level difference with other side is huge.
[19:14] <ettin> But that's why I don't like level-based games, anyone just want to have higher level units
[19:17] <miyo> ziberpunk: If advanced units die... as they usually do some point... there is always ongoing process to train lower level units to higher level units =)
wesnoth.log-20031229.gz
[02:52] <woodwizzle> Yes, I think its ok for High level units to be pretty powerful
wesnoth.log-20040201.gz
[19:19] <bryce_> because the higher-level units are fun
wesnoth.log-20040303.gz
[11:03] <miyo> rox: I would like to see higher level units weaker.
wesnoth.log-20040407.gz
[15:12] <miyo> cedric_: Well.. I have my opinion that higher level units should be downgraded
- Miyo
wesnoth.log-20031128.gz
[19:11] <miyo> ziberpunk: Very high levels easily introduce uber units... at least if level difference with other side is huge.
[19:14] <ettin> But that's why I don't like level-based games, anyone just want to have higher level units
[19:17] <miyo> ziberpunk: If advanced units die... as they usually do some point... there is always ongoing process to train lower level units to higher level units =)
wesnoth.log-20031229.gz
[02:52] <woodwizzle> Yes, I think its ok for High level units to be pretty powerful
wesnoth.log-20040201.gz
[19:19] <bryce_> because the higher-level units are fun
wesnoth.log-20040303.gz
[11:03] <miyo> rox: I would like to see higher level units weaker.
wesnoth.log-20040407.gz
[15:12] <miyo> cedric_: Well.. I have my opinion that higher level units should be downgraded
- Miyo
If higher level units become less powerfull I would like to see a unit get more XP for killing a higher level unit. That way units level faster and high level units are more likely to be attacked. I think this is good because if higher level units are less powerfull than they used to be it should also be easier to level a unit.