azos
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by azos on Dec 3, 2018 19:41:07 GMT -8
Okay, the more I try to make maps, the more it becomes apparent that it is almost impossible to create perfectly balanced maps. I do not view it as a downside in turn based games, even chess isn't balanced. What I do suggest is to balance unfair advantages as much as possible. Also, a few units have identity issues and in my opinion need changes. Since, you've mentioned that you're planning on releasing a patch which is aimed at balancing the game, I thought I'd make a few suggestions. - Remove the 50 damage dealt to enemy units standing on your castle during every allied turn. In order to explain what I mean, I'm going to show a picture of a map I created:
![]()   This map is intended to be played 2 v 2 (blue and green vs red and black), we can see that the side houses are mirrored. Blue is playing before black and can get the house, however, red is playing before green and can get their side house, too. Okay, so we've established that in order for this concept to work it is required that blue is actually playing against black, and red is playing against green. Here comes the tricky part, which happened to us playing this map quite a few times in private games. Black was able to get close to blue's castle, while green was able to do the same to red. The order of turns is obviously Blue->Red->Green->Black. If black puts a slime one blue's castle, then blue plays next and their castle is blocked by a slime that has only lost 50 hp. However, if green tried to do the same, putting a slime on red castle would result in the slime losing 50 hp when black turns starts, and then again 50 hp when red turn starts, thus eliminating the possibility of blocking the enemy castle (at least without having a 100+ hp unit). This is quite a big disadvantage, as during a siege it is a very crucial threat for the defender to deny any castle blockage. SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Deal the 50 damage only during the start of the turn whose castle it is. - Catapult + druid combo is too powerful and lame in high income games. Seriously, this combination ruins any high income maps and forces players to either obey formal rules of not doing it, or forces everyone to do it. It doesn't even make sense. Why are underplayed units like dragon and wolf penalized for having an ability to move after attacking, while a high range unit like catapult can move, attack and still get a reset turn by druid.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 1: Catapults shouldn't be able to attack and move during same turn (like in previous patches). SUGGESTED SOLUTION 2: Druid shouldn't be able to reset catapults' turns. - Golems are too powerful on any map that contains a healthy amount of mountains/hills. This unit had identity problems. It's supposed to be a defensive unit, yet when placed on a mountain it has 65 base attack damage and 55 physical defense. Basic units cannot even touch it, while it can deal massive damage and has very powerful crowd control + armor debuff.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 1: Cement its identity as a defensive unit by lowering its attack damage by 5 points, and decrease the aura radius to 1. This would force the golem to actually be in hitting range for melee units in order to debuff them, and would decrease some offensive power from this defensive unit.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 2: Reduce its armor by 5 and give an additional 5 affinity. This would enable a healthy counter by magic units.
- Berserkers shouldn't be punished for their ability to deal the same amount of damage regardless of their current hp. Overhealing a berserker to 140 hp will cause it to deal the same amount of damage as if it were 100. I suppose this was unintended and is a consequence of the implementation of the ability itself.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Berserkers are fun, they shouldn't be the subject of discrimination.
- Slimes are broken against physical damage dealers. While I do agree that units should have clear advantages and disadvantages against certain types of units, slimes are simply too cheap, and a slime in a house can resist an indefinite amount of damage from 2k worth of basic units (think mermaids, soldiers, archers, commanders, berserker).
SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Revert the changes made to the slime. It should have an unique ability that causes it to take 50% additional damage from magic damage and 50% less damage from physical damage dealers. Heck a commander, 3 soldiers and n -> inf archers can't kill a slime in a house, ever. I would suggest 5 base armor with -10 affinity.
- Dragons are too weak, so are wolfarchers. A dragon costs 1k gold and it's supposed to be the strongest unit in the game (immortal creatures, breathing fire etc. I'm just not feeling it). At least increase its damage to 75 so it can oneshot soldiers on road. I'm not sure about wolfarchers, they have an identity crisis, too. Is it a wolf, an archer or a black mage? Currently you can get a black mage for 300 gold and a wolf for 600. I know, I'd never buy that combination when I can go for something else, but it's way better than a wolfarcher. Perhaps give it poison instead, and reduce the cost to 700. It would give it the ability to snipe enemy units, rather than blind them, which in my opinion would be the job of marksmen.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Buff them.
I hope this didn't feel like a rant. I really love this game and I hope to see it someday have the popularity which it deserves. Also, maybe add public win/loss counts for players, the element of competition is often underrated. Hopefully you won't feel like all I've said is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by v4lkyri3m4ni4c on Dec 3, 2018 22:00:10 GMT -8
Okay, the more I try to make maps, the more it becomes apparent that it is almost impossible to create perfectly balanced maps. I do not view it as a downside in turn based games, even chess isn't balanced. What I do suggest is to balance unfair advantages as much as possible. Also, a few units have identity issues and in my opinion need changes. Since, you've mentioned that you're planning on releasing a patch which is aimed at balancing the game, I thought I'd make a few suggestions. - Remove the 50 damage dealt to enemy units standing on your castle during every allied turn. In order to explain what I mean, I'm going to show a picture of a map I created:
![]() This map is intended to be played 2 v 2 (blue and green vs red and black), we can see that the side houses are mirrored. Blue is playing before black and can get the house, however, red is playing before green and can get their side house, too. Okay, so we've established that in order for this concept to work it is required that blue is actually playing against black, and red is playing against green. Here comes the tricky part, which happened to us playing this map quite a few times in private games. Black was able to get close to blue's castle, while green was able to do the same to red. The order of turns is obviously Blue->Red->Green->Black. If black puts a slime one blue's castle, then blue plays next and their castle is blocked by a slime that has only lost 50 hp. However, if green tried to do the same, putting a slime on red castle would result in the slime losing 50 hp when black turns starts, and then again 50 hp when red turn starts, thus eliminating the possibility of blocking the enemy castle (at least without having a 100+ hp unit). This is quite a big disadvantage, as during a siege it is a very crucial threat for the defender to deny any castle blockage. SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Deal the 50 damage only during the start of the turn whose castle it is. - Catapult + druid combo is too powerful and lame in high income games. Seriously, this combination ruins any high income maps and forces players to either obey formal rules of not doing it, or forces everyone to do it. It doesn't even make sense. Why are underplayed units like dragon and wolf penalized for having an ability to move after attacking, while a high range unit like catapult can move, attack and still get a reset turn by druid.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 1: Catapults shouldn't be able to attack and move during same turn (like in previous patches). SUGGESTED SOLUTION 2: Druid shouldn't be able to reset catapults' turns. - Golems are too powerful on any map that contains a healthy amount of mountains/hills. This unit had identity problems. It's supposed to be a defensive unit, yet when placed on a mountain it has 65 base attack damage and 55 physical defense. Basic units cannot even touch it, while it can deal massive damage and has very powerful crowd control + armor debuff.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 1: Cement its identity as a defensive unit by lowering its attack damage by 5 points, and decrease the aura radius to 1. This would force the golem to actually be in hitting range for melee units in order to debuff them, and would decrease some offensive power from this defensive unit.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 2: Reduce its armor by 5 and give an additional 5 affinity. This would enable a healthy counter by magic units.
- Berserkers shouldn't be punished for their ability to deal the same amount of damage regardless of their current hp. Overhealing a berserker to 140 hp will cause it to deal the same amount of damage as if it were 100. I suppose this was unintended and is a consequence of the implementation of the ability itself.
SUGGEST SOLUTION: Berserkers are fun, they shouldn't be the subject of discrimination.
- Slimes are broken against physical damage dealers. While I do agree that units should have clear advantages and disadvantages against certain types of units, slimes are simply too cheap, and a slime in a house can resist an indefinite amount of damage from 2k worth of basic units (think mermaids, soldiers, archers, commanders, berserker).
SUGGEST SOLUTION: Revert the changes made to the slime. It should have an unique ability that causes it to take 50% additional damage from magic damage and 50% less damage from physical damage dealers. Heck a commander, 3 soldiers and n -> inf archers can't kill a slime in a house, ever. I would suggest 5 base armor with 10 affinity.
- Dragons are too weak, so are wolfarchers. A dragon costs 1k gold and it's supposed to be the strongest unit in the game (immortal creatures, breathing fire etc. I'm just not feeling it). At least increase its damage to 75 so it can oneshot soldiers on road. I'm not sure about wolfarchers, they have an identity crisis, too. Is it a wolf, an archer or a black mage? Currently you can get a black mage for 300 gold and a wolf for 600. I know, I'd never buy that combination when I can go for something else, but it's way better than a wolfarcher. Perhaps give it poison instead, and reduce the cost to 700. It would give it the ability to snipe enemy units, rather than blind them, which in my opinion would be the job of marksmen.
SUGGEST SOLUTION: Buff them.
I hope this didn't feel like a rant. I really love this game and I hope to see it someday have the popularity which it deserves. Also, maybe add public win/loss counts for players, the element of competition is often underrated. Hopefully you won't feel like all I've said is nonsense.
Hmm... I agree, but at the same time toyknight's changes were due to PVP complaints. I'll discuss this with him later. |
|
|
|
Post by toyknight on Dec 4, 2018 9:00:52 GMT -8
1. Putting units on castle is not the right way to balance maps...
2. Regarding catapult + druid combo that's somewhat true, but I think that's often caused by map design. You can try to download some td209's map and see if it's still the case.
3. Regarding golems, I do not know the definition of 'healthy amount', but if it's making golems too OP, that's definitely not 'healthy' at all. Good maps are designed the way that units can move around easily, blocking roads with mountains is not a good way to design maps.
4. Regarding berserkers that's intended, if over healing berserker can increase damage, then over heal him before ending your turn can be too OP.
5. Dragons really aren't weak, this comes back to the catapult + druid combo. 2 dragons = 2000G, catapult + druid = 1400G, with additional 600G what can you do, buy a wolf and get instantly killed by 2 dragons? 2 dragons can always get to the center of the map first, kill your soldiers and take over your villages, what can you do now, use druid + catapult + 600G unit to take back you villages and get destroyed by 2 dragons in next turn? If there's temples in the center of the map, blinding is not gonna work for dragons you know. And to take down a dragon with ranged attack, you will waste a lot of damage output (druid just makes it a little better), if your opponent simply recruits pure dragons, he can easily overwhelm you with dragon's deadly damage output.
All in all, pls check td209's map first. If I can convince him to come back and play PVP, you will understand how OP dragons are.
|
|
|
|
Post by toyknight on Dec 4, 2018 12:05:38 GMT -8
Okay, the more I try to make maps, the more it becomes apparent that it is almost impossible to create perfectly balanced maps. I do not view it as a downside in turn based games, even chess isn't balanced. What I do suggest is to balance unfair advantages as much as possible. Also, a few units have identity issues and in my opinion need changes. Since, you've mentioned that you're planning on releasing a patch which is aimed at balancing the game, I thought I'd make a few suggestions. - Remove the 50 damage dealt to enemy units standing on your castle during every allied turn. In order to explain what I mean, I'm going to show a picture of a map I created:
![]() This map is intended to be played 2 v 2 (blue and green vs red and black), we can see that the side houses are mirrored. Blue is playing before black and can get the house, however, red is playing before green and can get their side house, too. Okay, so we've established that in order for this concept to work it is required that blue is actually playing against black, and red is playing against green. Here comes the tricky part, which happened to us playing this map quite a few times in private games. Black was able to get close to blue's castle, while green was able to do the same to red. The order of turns is obviously Blue->Red->Green->Black. If black puts a slime one blue's castle, then blue plays next and their castle is blocked by a slime that has only lost 50 hp. However, if green tried to do the same, putting a slime on red castle would result in the slime losing 50 hp when black turns starts, and then again 50 hp when red turn starts, thus eliminating the possibility of blocking the enemy castle (at least without having a 100+ hp unit). This is quite a big disadvantage, as during a siege it is a very crucial threat for the defender to deny any castle blockage. SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Deal the 50 damage only during the start of the turn whose castle it is. - Catapult + druid combo is too powerful and lame in high income games. Seriously, this combination ruins any high income maps and forces players to either obey formal rules of not doing it, or forces everyone to do it. It doesn't even make sense. Why are underplayed units like dragon and wolf penalized for having an ability to move after attacking, while a high range unit like catapult can move, attack and still get a reset turn by druid.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 1: Catapults shouldn't be able to attack and move during same turn (like in previous patches). SUGGESTED SOLUTION 2: Druid shouldn't be able to reset catapults' turns. - Golems are too powerful on any map that contains a healthy amount of mountains/hills. This unit had identity problems. It's supposed to be a defensive unit, yet when placed on a mountain it has 65 base attack damage and 55 physical defense. Basic units cannot even touch it, while it can deal massive damage and has very powerful crowd control + armor debuff.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 1: Cement its identity as a defensive unit by lowering its attack damage by 5 points, and decrease the aura radius to 1. This would force the golem to actually be in hitting range for melee units in order to debuff them, and would decrease some offensive power from this defensive unit.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 2: Reduce its armor by 5 and give an additional 5 affinity. This would enable a healthy counter by magic units.
- Berserkers shouldn't be punished for their ability to deal the same amount of damage regardless of their current hp. Overhealing a berserker to 140 hp will cause it to deal the same amount of damage as if it were 100. I suppose this was unintended and is a consequence of the implementation of the ability itself.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Berserkers are fun, they shouldn't be the subject of discrimination.
- Slimes are broken against physical damage dealers. While I do agree that units should have clear advantages and disadvantages against certain types of units, slimes are simply too cheap, and a slime in a house can resist an indefinite amount of damage from 2k worth of basic units (think mermaids, soldiers, archers, commanders, berserker).
SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Revert the changes made to the slime. It should have an unique ability that causes it to take 50% additional damage from magic damage and 50% less damage from physical damage dealers. Heck a commander, 3 soldiers and n -> inf archers can't kill a slime in a house, ever. I would suggest 5 base armor with -10 affinity.
- Dragons are too weak, so are wolfarchers. A dragon costs 1k gold and it's supposed to be the strongest unit in the game (immortal creatures, breathing fire etc. I'm just not feeling it). At least increase its damage to 75 so it can oneshot soldiers on road. I'm not sure about wolfarchers, they have an identity crisis, too. Is it a wolf, an archer or a black mage? Currently you can get a black mage for 300 gold and a wolf for 600. I know, I'd never buy that combination when I can go for something else, but it's way better than a wolfarcher. Perhaps give it poison instead, and reduce the cost to 700. It would give it the ability to snipe enemy units, rather than blind them, which in my opinion would be the job of marksmen.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Buff them.
I hope this didn't feel like a rant. I really love this game and I hope to see it someday have the popularity which it deserves. Also, maybe add public win/loss counts for players, the element of competition is often underrated. Hopefully you won't feel like all I've said is nonsense.
I agree with some points that azos mentions. 1.When a unit is left in the enemy castle, I think that the best option is to discount the 50 life points immediately when the player finishes the turn and not continue discounting when the next players finish their turn. Currently when it is a duel 1v1 works perfectly, but if you increase the number of players, it becomes clear that a team gets an advantage when using this tactic, when it is a 4 player map always one team will have advantage over another using the same strategy mentioned, because they can not be ordered so that this does not happen, but when there are 6 teams they can be disordered so that anyone who leaves a unit in the enemy castle does not survive, at least when the 6 teams still participate. In short, it is something that requires a solution for the same thing to happen, regardless of the number of players participating. 2. The Catapult (+ paladin) + druid combo is really very powerful, it is better to invest in these units than others of equal or greater value, it seems better to eliminate the ability to use the catapult 2 times per turn, as well as other powerful ones units of high value and power if it were to change, although as mentioned toyknight depends on the correct distribution of land. 3.In the original game, the golem was so powerful and resistant that you could survive only with one golem against 3 allied enemies (although I do not remember if it was like this in all versions), compared to those times now the golem is quite weak, although I do agree that when they appear in battle and do not have the right units to fight the golem is a serious problem. 4.For the berserker, until now, of the changes that I have seen, the most appropriate is to increase its attack and defend when it is close to the enemy units (and increases according to the number of enemies), if possible, it would complement the current berserker with this ability again, due to his high attack, it is not good that he also get attack points when the paladin helps him. 5.Differently the slime is a serious case, I dare to say today that you resist more than a golem if you attack it with brute force (it is just a saying), I propose that the sirens be able to provide damage to these units since they have a Identical value and how are units of water should know the weakness of the slime. 6. Yes, the dragon is now a bit weaker compared to past updates, it lacks defense, but its melee attack, nothing to say about it, the remote attack may be able to increase a range, to 2 from distance to decrease 50% and to 3 from distance to decrease 75% (percentage only of reference), I think that this way resembles more to how the dragons are. 7. The mounted archer, beyond its mixture of units and abilities, is a good choice, only that currently has limitations, to get its maximum utility must be added correctly the skills of each unit, for example, currently its range and type attack are correct if we compare them to a dark wizard and an archer, but there are deficiencies on the part of the wolf, you have to increase their movements equal to the wolf and be able to choose between two types of attack, both attacks are away and cause the same damage, the first is to blind the enemies and the second can poison (now the archer can take advantage of the venom of the wolf and the skill of the dark magician correctly), then with these changes if it can be worth 800. (the attack of poison has that to be at a distance, because otherwise it is convenient to buy a wolf). 8.I will add a point that does not mention azos (I have also participated in their private games), when there are 4 players, the state effects last only 1 turn, whereas when there are 2 players (1v1), the effects last 2 turns, I think that this must be correctly regulated so that regardless of the number of players, each state effect can last 2 turns (for shift duration I mean when all participants move 1 time, it is assumed that the effects should last 2 turns of each participant and in the third disappears) * toyknight , can you re-analyze point 1 and explain what happens with number 8 ?, the other points are suggestions if those units are going to have some change. 1. If we make this change, all the current replays will be deleted due to incompatible engine version. If you guys are okay with that then I will do it. 2. I will try to get td209 back, if he thinks this combo is too powerful then nerf is coming. 3. Golems likely will remain unchanged 4. Berserkers likely will remain unchanged 5. Mermaids and slimes will remain unchanged
6. That change is quite complex, likely won't happen 7. Wolf archers will get a buff in next update 8. Pls note that it's counted in rounds not turns. After all players finish their turns once, it's counted as a round
|
|
azos
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by azos on Dec 4, 2018 12:54:56 GMT -8
1. Putting units on castle is not the right way to balance maps... 2. Regarding catapult + druid combo that's somewhat true, but I think that's often caused by map design. You can try to download some td209's map and see if it's still the case. 3. Regarding golems, I do not know the definition of 'healthy amount', but if it's making golems too OP, that's definitely not 'healthy' at all. Good maps are designed the way that units can move around easily, blocking roads with mountains is not a good way to design maps. 4. Regarding berserkers that's intended, if over healing berserker can increase damage, then over heal him before ending your turn can be too OP. 5. Dragons really aren't weak, this comes back to the catapult + druid combo. 2 dragons = 2000G, catapult + druid = 1400G, with additional 600G what can you do, buy a wolf and get instantly killed by 2 dragons? 2 dragons can always get to the center of the map first, kill your soldiers and take over your villages, what can you do now, use druid + catapult + 600G unit to take back you villages and get destroyed by 2 dragons in next turn? If there's temples in the center of the map, blinding is not gonna work for dragons you know. And to take down a dragon with ranged attack, you will waste a lot of damage output (druid just makes it a little better), if your opponent simply recruits pure dragons, he can easily overwhelm you with dragon's deadly damage output. All in all, pls check td209's map first. If I can convince him to come back and play PVP, you will understand how OP dragons are. 1. I believe you didn't even read 1., nothing to talk about here. 2. Most of td209's maps are 1 v 1, small or direct conflict maps. However, fine, I challenge anyone to beat the lame druid + catapult combo on "BW A Simple 1V1"-td209, or on "thewatertemple", or on "bloodonmyhand", or on "all road to CY", or on "Agitated", or on "Battle of Thermopyra", maybe others too. 3. Seriously? Since you think td's maps should be a measure of good maps - pick almost any of td209's maps, they have a healthy amount of mountains. 4. I don't see how that's op since the combo would cost 900 gold and can currently be killed by a slime. 5. Your point just shows that you haven't played pvp since ages. You're never gonna get 2 dragons in a game where you're not winning already so it doesn't really matter(unless the map starts with 2k gold, in which case buying 2 dragons on start is gonna result in you losing). You mention druids, catapults and wolves against 2 dragons. That really doesn't make sense. Obviously, you're not going to hit a ranged defender unit with a catapult. You want to compare the units in the sense of gold, then here's an unfair comparison just like yours. Put 2 dragons and 6-7 archers on a map, they still lose to less gold. Same works with 10 soldiers unless the person with the dragons manages to somehow run around the map playing catch and chase 20 turns. All in all, I beg you to take 20 minutes of your time and see for yourself these things, instead of asking other people what they think, which will take more than 20 minutes. Pick yourself a map and play against yourself, on one side buy 2 dragons and on the other idk 5 archers, a swordsman and a druid. |
|
|
|
Post by toyknight on Dec 4, 2018 14:12:55 GMT -8
1. Putting units on castle is not the right way to balance maps... 2. Regarding catapult + druid combo that's somewhat true, but I think that's often caused by map design. You can try to download some td209's map and see if it's still the case. 3. Regarding golems, I do not know the definition of 'healthy amount', but if it's making golems too OP, that's definitely not 'healthy' at all. Good maps are designed the way that units can move around easily, blocking roads with mountains is not a good way to design maps. 4. Regarding berserkers that's intended, if over healing berserker can increase damage, then over heal him before ending your turn can be too OP. 5. Dragons really aren't weak, this comes back to the catapult + druid combo. 2 dragons = 2000G, catapult + druid = 1400G, with additional 600G what can you do, buy a wolf and get instantly killed by 2 dragons? 2 dragons can always get to the center of the map first, kill your soldiers and take over your villages, what can you do now, use druid + catapult + 600G unit to take back you villages and get destroyed by 2 dragons in next turn? If there's temples in the center of the map, blinding is not gonna work for dragons you know. And to take down a dragon with ranged attack, you will waste a lot of damage output (druid just makes it a little better), if your opponent simply recruits pure dragons, he can easily overwhelm you with dragon's deadly damage output. All in all, pls check td209's map first. If I can convince him to come back and play PVP, you will understand how OP dragons are. 1. I believe you didn't even read 1., nothing to talk about here. 2. Most of td209's maps are 1 v 1, small or direct conflict maps. However, fine, I challenge anyone to beat the lame druid + catapult combo on "BW A Simple 1V1"-td209, or on "thewatertemple", or on "bloodonmyhand", or on "all road to CY", or on "Agitated", or on "Battle of Thermopyra", maybe others too. 3. Seriously? Since you think td's maps should be a measure of good maps - pick almost any of td209's maps, they have a healthy amount of mountains. 4. I don't see how that's op since the combo would cost 900 gold and can currently be killed by a slime. 5. Your point just shows that you haven't played pvp since ages. You're never gonna get 2 dragons in a game where you're not winning already so it doesn't really matter(unless the map starts with 2k gold, in which case buying 2 dragons on start is gonna result in you losing). You mention druids, catapults and wolves against 2 dragons. That really doesn't make sense. Obviously, you're not going to hit a ranged defender unit with a catapult. You want to compare the units in the sense of gold, then here's an unfair comparison just like yours. Put 2 dragons and 6-7 archers on a map, they still lose to less gold. Same works with 10 soldiers unless the person with the dragons manages to somehow run around the map playing catch and chase 20 turns. All in all, I beg you to take 20 minutes of your time and see for yourself these things, instead of asking other people what they think, which will take more than 20 minutes. Pick yourself a map and play against yourself, on one side buy 2 dragons and on the other idk 5 archers, a swordsman and a druid. A truly balanced map should take income curve into consideration, which is a very advanced topic, hope I can find a time to write a guide on it.
I have played quite a lot PVP with td209 before while testing game balance. Honestly speaking, in BW A Simple 1V1 map, if you play against him, you won't have a chance to buy catapults. Low income maps unless designed poorly (where units cannot move freely resulting in easy defending) catapults have very little chance to appear. td209 also has some high income maps, those maps are simply dominated by dragons.
To be frank, most of 3.0 balance changes are based on 2.0 PVP testings, if you think some of them are not right, maybe it's just you have not met the right opponent like td209 before.
Anyways, I need to test with him before confirming the balance change, if he can come back and play more online PVP games it's gonna be a valuable experience for you guys.
|
|
azos
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by azos on Dec 4, 2018 14:44:54 GMT -8
1. I believe you didn't even read 1., nothing to talk about here. 2. Most of td209's maps are 1 v 1, small or direct conflict maps. However, fine, I challenge anyone to beat the lame druid + catapult combo on "BW A Simple 1V1"-td209, or on "thewatertemple", or on "bloodonmyhand", or on "all road to CY", or on "Agitated", or on "Battle of Thermopyra", maybe others too. 3. Seriously? Since you think td's maps should be a measure of good maps - pick almost any of td209's maps, they have a healthy amount of mountains. 4. I don't see how that's op since the combo would cost 900 gold and can currently be killed by a slime. 5. Your point just shows that you haven't played pvp since ages. You're never gonna get 2 dragons in a game where you're not winning already so it doesn't really matter(unless the map starts with 2k gold, in which case buying 2 dragons on start is gonna result in you losing). You mention druids, catapults and wolves against 2 dragons. That really doesn't make sense. Obviously, you're not going to hit a ranged defender unit with a catapult. You want to compare the units in the sense of gold, then here's an unfair comparison just like yours. Put 2 dragons and 6-7 archers on a map, they still lose to less gold. Same works with 10 soldiers unless the person with the dragons manages to somehow run around the map playing catch and chase 20 turns. All in all, I beg you to take 20 minutes of your time and see for yourself these things, instead of asking other people what they think, which will take more than 20 minutes. Pick yourself a map and play against yourself, on one side buy 2 dragons and on the other idk 5 archers, a swordsman and a druid. A truly balanced map should take income curve into consideration, which is a very advanced topic, hope I can find a time to write a guide on it.
I have played quite a lot PVP with td209 before while testing game balance. Honestly speaking, in BW A Simple 1V1 map, if you play against him, you won't have a chance to buy catapults. Low income maps unless designed poorly (where units cannot move freely resulting in easy defending) catapults have very little chance to appear. td209 also has some high income maps, those maps are simply dominated by dragons.
To be frank, most of 3.0 balance changes are based on 2.0 PVP testings, if you think some of them are not right, maybe it's just you have not met the right opponent like td209 before.
Anyways, I need to test with him before confirming the balance change, if he can come back and play more online PVP games it's gonna be a valuable experience for you guys.
I am an electrical engineer so there is no need to write a guide on it for me to understand it. I believe I have come across something similar on this forum and it was written by the user blackwave. If you want I can write a guide on it for people who do not understand it for maps that do not use my concept of 2 v 2. To explain further, when pairing up blue and green against black and red you have blue having higher income than black in their side 1 v 1 and red having more income than green on their side. Of course this causes an imbalance because black has lower income than both blue and green during the same round, and this is intended. It causes a slight imbalance and makes the games more interesting, yet fair because black can see ahead what units everyone else is buying and can therefore adapt accordingly. I am not claiming this is a perfect solution, but I like it more than giving black houses to balance it out, therefore giving black an advantage by having same income and being able to see what everyone else is buying which in my opinion is a bigger advantage later on. Of course you can claim that blue can decide not to buy anything and wait to counter black, but then blue is forfeiting their advantage of playing first and only has the money advantage. Long story short, I believe it should be played like this because you can then switch sides and have the same "unfair" advantage. If the goal was to decide which team is better, then you can play 1 game, switch sides, play another and if it is a draw then the team with least turns taken to beat the enemy wins. Chess tournaments are also played in a similar fashion by switching sides more or less. I'd like to also mention that the map is slightly favoring black against blue in the middle because of the terrain and the houses being in a safer spot, as well as green against red.
As far as BW A Simple 1v1 map is concerned, I am not claiming that you can simply brain dead buy catapults and druids. Of course you need to get a fair amount of support units depending on the current situation. Also, I am not claiming that you can simply win by buying catapults and druids even if your skill level is way below your enemy, however any game between similarly skilled players will be decided for the player who goes with catapults and druids on this map(if his enemy doesn't do the same), which kills diversity.
I am glad you want to test it, you can do a preliminary test by playing against yourself with the units I mentioned in the previous post and see if what I am saying has any merit, therefore not testing it at all, if not, which would save you time. Also, you didn't address the slime suggestions/complaints. Please note that I did not claim that you didn't play pvp a lot, I just claimed that you didn't do it since a long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by v4lkyri3m4ni4c on Dec 4, 2018 15:35:30 GMT -8
Wolfarchers deserve a buff, golem requires pvp testing, berserker is already strong he just need to be backed by druids, golems and spirits. Dragons also pending pvp testing. Catapult also pending pvp testing. Therefore, to make buffs and nerfs, we must get td209 first before toyknight can decide whether to make balancing changes or not. And last but not least, FOREST TEMPLE! I also planned to create terrains that can trigger both son of mountain/forest and also the water/forest version, but even if toyknight approves, the last one to redesign them was XunZheZhe, who's busy dealing his real-life stuffs in China right now. |
|
|
|
Post by toyknight on Dec 4, 2018 16:19:35 GMT -8
A truly balanced map should take income curve into consideration, which is a very advanced topic, hope I can find a time to write a guide on it.
I have played quite a lot PVP with td209 before while testing game balance. Honestly speaking, in BW A Simple 1V1 map, if you play against him, you won't have a chance to buy catapults. Low income maps unless designed poorly (where units cannot move freely resulting in easy defending) catapults have very little chance to appear. td209 also has some high income maps, those maps are simply dominated by dragons.
To be frank, most of 3.0 balance changes are based on 2.0 PVP testings, if you think some of them are not right, maybe it's just you have not met the right opponent like td209 before.
Anyways, I need to test with him before confirming the balance change, if he can come back and play more online PVP games it's gonna be a valuable experience for you guys.
I am an electrical engineer so there is no need to write a guide on it for me to understand it. I believe I have come across something similar on this forum and it was written by the user blackwave. If you want I can write a guide on it for people who do not understand it for maps that do not use my concept of 2 v 2. To explain further, when pairing up blue and green against black and red you have blue having higher income than black in their side 1 v 1 and red having more income than green on their side. Of course this causes an imbalance because black has lower income than both blue and green during the same round, and this is intended. It causes a slight imbalance and makes the games more interesting, yet fair because black can see ahead what units everyone else is buying and can therefore adapt accordingly. I am not claiming this is a perfect solution, but I like it more than giving black houses to balance it out, therefore giving black an advantage by having same income and being able to see what everyone else is buying which in my opinion is a bigger advantage later on. Of course you can claim that blue can decide not to buy anything and wait to counter black, but then blue is forfeiting their advantage of playing first and only has the money advantage. Long story short, I believe it should be played like this because you can then switch sides and have the same "unfair" advantage. If the goal was to decide which team is better, then you can play 1 game, switch sides, play another and if it is a draw then the team with least turns taken to beat the enemy wins. Chess tournaments are also played in a similar fashion by switching sides more or less. I'd like to also mention that the map is slightly favoring black against blue in the middle because of the terrain and the houses being in a safer spot, as well as green against red.
As far as BW A Simple 1v1 map is concerned, I am not claiming that you can simply brain dead buy catapults and druids. Of course you need to get a fair amount of support units depending on the current situation. Also, I am not claiming that you can simply win by buying catapults and druids even if your skill level is way below your enemy, however any game between similarly skilled players will be decided for the player who goes with catapults and druids on this map(if his enemy doesn't do the same), which kills diversity.
I am glad you want to test it, you can do a preliminary test by playing against yourself with the units I mentioned in the previous post and see if what I am saying has any merit, therefore not testing it at all, if not, which would save you time. Also, you didn't address the slime suggestions/complaints. Please note that I did not claim that you didn't play pvp a lot, I just claimed that you didn't do it since a long time.
Test is a must before changing balance. Also the main reason that I wanted to add multiplayer game replay is that we can learn what happened in the pervious games, it's the most valuable resource for balance adjustment. |
|
|
|
Post by v4lkyri3m4ni4c on Dec 4, 2018 22:17:32 GMT -8
Wolfarchers deserve a buff, golem requires pvp testing, berserker is already strong he just need to be backed by druids, golems and spirits. Dragons also pending pvp testing. Catapult also pending pvp testing. Therefore, to make buffs and nerfs, we must get td209 first before toyknight can decide whether to make balancing changes or not. And last but not least, FOREST TEMPLE! I also planned to create terrains that can trigger both son of mountain/forest and also the water/forest version, but even if toyknight approves, the last one to redesign them was XunZheZhe, who's busy dealing his real-life stuffs in China right now. But there are already several temples, there is one aquatic and another terestre, what would be the difference? Besides the visual aspect, I propose to give preference to new lands (if they were added) to join water-land, for example a type of aquatic house but with a base similar to the bridge, in this way an aquatic mountain can be added immediately. XunZheZhe already added the aquatic mountain. For aquatic house, I fear that toyknight will turn it down. New lands can be considered since there's no grass terrains at all. Lava, sand, etc could be considered. |
|
|
|
Post by v4lkyri3m4ni4c on Dec 4, 2018 22:19:15 GMT -8
yeah catapult + druid lame and i even hate it Then both the druid's defense and affinity should be 5. Hence, 0 physical def and 10 magic def. |
|
|
|
Post by kaibaman on Dec 4, 2018 22:24:45 GMT -8
lets bring td 209.
i propose a match up (kaibaman, azos) vs (toyknight,td 209)
|
|
|
|
Post by kaibaman on Dec 4, 2018 22:28:24 GMT -8
there is one bug i forgot. the dragon have meelee master but why the f*** it cannot use its melee master vs another dragon. as far as i know it is not a status effect. OR is it intended
|
|
|
|
Post by kaibaman on Dec 4, 2018 23:57:04 GMT -8
Okay, the more I try to make maps, the more it becomes apparent that it is almost impossible to create perfectly balanced maps. I do not view it as a downside in turn based games, even chess isn't balanced. What I do suggest is to balance unfair advantages as much as possible. Also, a few units have identity issues and in my opinion need changes. Since, you've mentioned that you're planning on releasing a patch which is aimed at balancing the game, I thought I'd make a few suggestions. - Remove the 50 damage dealt to enemy units standing on your castle during every allied turn. In order to explain what I mean, I'm going to show a picture of a map I created:
![]() This map is intended to be played 2 v 2 (blue and green vs red and black), we can see that the side houses are mirrored. Blue is playing before black and can get the house, however, red is playing before green and can get their side house, too. Okay, so we've established that in order for this concept to work it is required that blue is actually playing against black, and red is playing against green. Here comes the tricky part, which happened to us playing this map quite a few times in private games. Black was able to get close to blue's castle, while green was able to do the same to red. The order of turns is obviously Blue->Red->Green->Black. If black puts a slime one blue's castle, then blue plays next and their castle is blocked by a slime that has only lost 50 hp. However, if green tried to do the same, putting a slime on red castle would result in the slime losing 50 hp when black turns starts, and then again 50 hp when red turn starts, thus eliminating the possibility of blocking the enemy castle (at least without having a 100+ hp unit). This is quite a big disadvantage, as during a siege it is a very crucial threat for the defender to deny any castle blockage. SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Deal the 50 damage only during the start of the turn whose castle it is. - Catapult + druid combo is too powerful and lame in high income games. Seriously, this combination ruins any high income maps and forces players to either obey formal rules of not doing it, or forces everyone to do it. It doesn't even make sense. Why are underplayed units like dragon and wolf penalized for having an ability to move after attacking, while a high range unit like catapult can move, attack and still get a reset turn by druid.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 1: Catapults shouldn't be able to attack and move during same turn (like in previous patches). SUGGESTED SOLUTION 2: Druid shouldn't be able to reset catapults' turns. - Golems are too powerful on any map that contains a healthy amount of mountains/hills. This unit had identity problems. It's supposed to be a defensive unit, yet when placed on a mountain it has 65 base attack damage and 55 physical defense. Basic units cannot even touch it, while it can deal massive damage and has very powerful crowd control + armor debuff.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 1: Cement its identity as a defensive unit by lowering its attack damage by 5 points, and decrease the aura radius to 1. This would force the golem to actually be in hitting range for melee units in order to debuff them, and would decrease some offensive power from this defensive unit.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 2: Reduce its armor by 5 and give an additional 5 affinity. This would enable a healthy counter by magic units.
- Berserkers shouldn't be punished for their ability to deal the same amount of damage regardless of their current hp. Overhealing a berserker to 140 hp will cause it to deal the same amount of damage as if it were 100. I suppose this was unintended and is a consequence of the implementation of the ability itself.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Berserkers are fun, they shouldn't be the subject of discrimination.
- Slimes are broken against physical damage dealers. While I do agree that units should have clear advantages and disadvantages against certain types of units, slimes are simply too cheap, and a slime in a house can resist an indefinite amount of damage from 2k worth of basic units (think mermaids, soldiers, archers, commanders, berserker).
SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Revert the changes made to the slime. It should have an unique ability that causes it to take 50% additional damage from magic damage and 50% less damage from physical damage dealers. Heck a commander, 3 soldiers and n -> inf archers can't kill a slime in a house, ever. I would suggest 5 base armor with -10 affinity.
- Dragons are too weak, so are wolfarchers. A dragon costs 1k gold and it's supposed to be the strongest unit in the game (immortal creatures, breathing fire etc. I'm just not feeling it). At least increase its damage to 75 so it can oneshot soldiers on road. I'm not sure about wolfarchers, they have an identity crisis, too. Is it a wolf, an archer or a black mage? Currently you can get a black mage for 300 gold and a wolf for 600. I know, I'd never buy that combination when I can go for something else, but it's way better than a wolfarcher. Perhaps give it poison instead, and reduce the cost to 700. It would give it the ability to snipe enemy units, rather than blind them, which in my opinion would be the job of marksmen.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Buff them.
I hope this didn't feel like a rant. I really love this game and I hope to see it someday have the popularity which it deserves. Also, maybe add public win/loss counts for players, the element of competition is often underrated. Hopefully you won't feel like all I've said is nonsense.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION 2: Reduce its armor by 5 and give an additional 5 affinity. This would enable a healthy counter by magic units. i dont quite agree with this idea. u reduce the def by 5 and increase affinity by 5 means the golem has zero defense vs magic. and the the golem is more or less useless. may be u can reduce its attak but if so doing either decrese its price or increase its defense |
|
|
|
Post by v4lkyri3m4ni4c on Dec 5, 2018 2:26:25 GMT -8
there is one bug i forgot. the dragon have meelee master but why the f*** it cannot use its melee master vs another dragon. as far as i know it is not a status effect. OR is it intended The bug is confirmed. 1 is before, 2 is after, blue dragon should have 33 HP left but it's 55 instead. toyknight , WE REALLY GOT A BUG TO FIX!   |
|
