cRPG

cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: San on September 20, 2013, 05:15:52 am

Title: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on September 20, 2013, 05:15:52 am
I made a topic like this a year back. I pretty much have the same stance, but things have changed and I want to try to get more to the point/see what people think nowadays (more strength builds in EU, etc). This suggestion is mostly geared with melee's balance in mind, but ranged users would be able to wear a bit more armor and hybridize easier. I am not trying to buff myself since I am planning to make a 0IF character regardless, but the balance issue cannot be ignored. I just feel that agility users get unneeded penalties like a weak WM attribute and losing almost twice as many wpf points as strength builds.


With these changes, I feel we'll have a more balanced and faster game. One type of playstyle among melee (strength) won't feel like the dominant choice and both sides will feel closer in viability.


Reason: ~4-5 points in agility = 1 ath. 2 points in strength = 1 IF and you also get strength/5 extra damage.

What should change: Hp from strength= ceil(strength/2) instead of just strength. IF = +3 hp.

Why: That way, 5-6 strength = 1IF with the small strength/5 damage boost. Penalize low IF builds slightly, make IF more worth it. A 30 strength 0IF build just won't have as much HP as an 18 strength 6 IF build like it does currently. After using an agility melee build, IF is currently pretty useless for it. It's more effective to squeeze an extra point into ATH and just wear more armor so that you move faster and take more hits, which also doesn't make as much sense (ath is very powerful).

Optional (but highly advocated): Increase base HP ~5 so that Max IF builds have around the same HP and 0IF builds aren't penalized too harshly, maybe losing 3-6hp, not much. High strength 0IF loses more hp, but they'll still have higher base hp anyways.



Reason: %based armor reduction heavily penalizes players with decent wpf levels. Wpf centralizes around 110-130. WM only gives 9wpf on a pure build, where only 5-6 points get used. 1WM essentially being 5-6 points is too weak. Even if the wpf curve is changed, most of the playerbase won't notice much if they use medium-light armor and above.

What should change: Make wpf reduction linear- a straight up subtraction.

A central wpf value needs to be chosen where above that value, armor reduction is better than it is currently. I think that value should be 140-> The equation becomes effective_wpf = base_wpf - (effective_armor_weight * 1.4). At 130, it will be *1.3 instead of 1.4, and is more lenient for lower wpf builds.

Why: This makes it so that wpf reduction from armor is unbiased. This change can also be done without messing with any plans for changing the current wpf curve. Hybrids that evenly split ~120 will be very slightly nerfed by a few points, but hybrids with a primary and secondary weapon can shave off more points on their primary weapon while having more effective wpf than they do currently in both weapons.

Pure builds buffed. 0 WM builds are nerfed, but a pure build can manage with 2-3 WM easily. Movement speed reduction from armor is pretty linear with ath relieving you of an extra ~7 weight for each point, so it's natural to believe that wpf reductoin should be linear. Also, don't fret light armor agility users, you guys will be buffed when the staff implements the new wpf curve.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Kafein on September 20, 2013, 09:57:53 am
IF is too weak ? You are out of your mind.

Remove free HP from STR, give a +2 damage buff to all attacks of all melee weapons and voila STR fixed.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Matey on September 20, 2013, 10:08:16 am
Your proposed IF changes are no good.

Problem: Strength builds seem too good.
Your Solution: Make a stat that all Str crutchers already max out better while making str a bit lower...
Example: 33/3 with 11IF... 33+22 = 55 extra hp. Under you idea... 16(or 17)+33 = 49-50 extra hp.
Example2: 18/18 with 6IF... 18+12 = 30. with your method... 9+18 = 27.
Example3: 15/24 with 0IF... 15+0=15. with your method... 7-8+0=7-8.

If you add the extra 5 base hp then the pure str guy comes out even... the balanced build has a slight gain and the agi guy gets shafted anyways.

IF is already an amazing skill for high armour players... leave it alone I say.

The better solution is making wpf matter more or perhaps having AGI buff swing speed a bit. or maybe make athletics better... it is good and all... but it could be so much better.

It is possible that a wpf change would solve everything and chadz has been promising a wpf change for about a year now... so one of these days?
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: PsychoTwins on September 20, 2013, 10:11:25 am
I really like the idea of a WPF change, would make me have to re-do my builds but I think would actually make me use WPF
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Paul on September 20, 2013, 12:27:19 pm
HP stuff is too hardcoded iirc.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Nightmare798 on September 20, 2013, 01:35:28 pm
IF is too weak ? You are out of your mind.

Remove free HP from STR, give a +2 damage buff to all attacks of all melee weapons and voila STR fixed.
cool, more insta-kills!
sounds fixed!!!
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Thomek on September 21, 2013, 12:15:59 am
HP stuff is too hardcoded iirc.

What about a buff to agi then? Especially athletics or wpm..

Athletics could get a 1.5x that the game sees. Rounded up or down.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Gurnisson on September 21, 2013, 12:28:36 am
Athletics definitely doesn't need a buff. It's the most powerful infantry skill already. Weapon master buff? Sure, it's below average skill.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Matey on September 21, 2013, 12:29:29 am
Athletics definitely doesn't need a buff. It's the most powerful infantry skill already.

thats why 13 ath guys totally dominate compared to 13 ps guys.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Gurnisson on September 21, 2013, 12:44:09 am
thats why 13 ath guys totally dominate compared to 13 ps guys.

If strength hadn't given hp, I'd go minimal strength all the time (12/33, 15/30 etc.) Athletics > Power Strike. However, gain from strength attributes is better than agility and Ironflesh is better than Weapon Master. A small weapon master buff would've been nice to balance it out, but I really don't really think there's a significant gap between agility-leaning builds and strength-leaning builds.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Teeth on September 21, 2013, 12:50:07 am
Me and a lot of veteran players I have spoken to consider STR and AGI to be relatively equal and consider balanced builds optimal (when talking about battle). Having tried pretty much every STR - AGI combination in the book I find all of them effective from 9 STR up to 42 STR. More STR means you need to stick with the pack more to avoid being ganked and more AGI allows you to play more independently but makes you more prone to dying to fluke hits, ergo ranged. I'd pick a 21/21 build over any higher STR build any day because it is simply the best of both worlds and it allows for a range of weapon and armour choices while being effective with every single one of them. I tend to find

I agree with Gurnisson that there is a problem with WM and IF balance. PS and Athlethics are equally useful to me, but I'd go 0-3 WM to max my IF no doubt. The only good reason to get high WM is when you use a really slow and/or really high damage weapon, with the percentual speed increases that WM offers they benefit much more noticably. Maxed my WM for the Pike on my main and planning on maxing it on my 2h for the Flamberge, but leaving it at a measely 2-3 for my cav and 1h characters.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Thomek on September 21, 2013, 03:45:02 am
Athletics definitely doesn't need a buff. It's the most powerful infantry skill already. Weapon master buff? Sure, it's below average skill.

We are still awaiting the WM rework right? Idk where Tydeus took that one..

Athletics most powerful after PS, PD and PT (All str based) perhaps.  What I thought was that since STR is too hardcoded, one could balance it out by buffing agi.

And since it should be easily possible to buff basic skills behind the curtain (As in: website says you have 10, in reality you have 15)
i suggested we buff athletics (awaiting WM rework)

But perhaps what one should do is to in stead buff AGI as a raw stat behind the curtain, and let the website limit the skill points according to visible AGI. Then AGI would would affect swing speed and running slightly as well, if I remember right.

This would all of course entail that we introduce these meta-skillpoints, with all the work and possibilities they would offer.. :)
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on September 21, 2013, 03:59:09 am
I would like all 0IF builds to be a little less tempting than they are right now. A 0IF agi guy would lose less hp than a 0IF strength guy. Maxing IF would give a few points extra hp all around, but I think that's a small price to pay for having lower average wpf. Sucks that hp can't be changed, and the other change I proposed might also not be feasible. I just assumed most basic formulas in the game could be changed.

I believe agi builds are very good, but that's mostly just the domination of athletics. Right now, I prefer having the minimum strength required to not be crippled (15-18) and just max agi afterwards. There's not too much difference from being moderately faster and much faster. Maxing your wpf also makes your swings slightly more powerful. A 5PS pure build with light armor would hit similar to a mixed 6PS build. When I estimated weapon speeds from WaltF4's graphs, ~15 wpf acts similar to an extra weapon speed. Small wpf differences are more important than one might believe.

Strength builds losing some points and agility builds gaining some points (balanced mostly unchanged) will notice quite a difference. I think any more difference and it will be too much. I also assume that the devs already have some plan for the wpf curve and will leave that to them. The 140-170 area of wpf gets hit so hard by armor, that it's easier to just take a strength/balanced build with even lighter armor so you'll take more hits, stay fast, and have decent wpf. Even so, everyone gets stuck in that 110-140 wpf range with even mid-light armor.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Matey on September 21, 2013, 04:40:02 am
I would like all 0IF builds to be a little less tempting than they are right now.

No! IF doesn't help me kill the enemy... it helps me survive fuck ups or bad situations... I don't want it in my build and I don't want it to be mandatory to every single build... strength already has PS/PD/PT for a mandatory skill... why give them a second?
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Huscarlton_Banks on September 21, 2013, 06:02:18 pm
It is possible to muck around with max HP values in 1.153+ via agent_set_max_hit_points on spawn, and healing them afterward with agent_set_hit_points.

Some sort of rework of the damage system via xenoargh's fancy damage system could also work, with higher wpf causing more favorable simulated soak/reduction rolls.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Vodner on September 22, 2013, 05:31:17 pm
Quote
Some sort of rework of the damage system via xenoargh's fancy damage system could also work, with higher wpf causing more favorable simulated soak/reduction rolls.
The randomness in soak/reduce rolls is almost nonexistent after a couple patches ago. That being said, it would be interesting to have WPF actively reduce soak and reduce.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Elindor on September 23, 2013, 08:58:33 pm
If HP gain is hardcoded into STR that is a problem, unless the yield can be altered - because currently people can make huge STR builds and forego IF because they get so much from STR itself.  Instead, they just put all the points into PS. 

Maybe HP gains from STR could STOP being received above 27 STR or something?

Also, yeah WPF/WM is too weak in its impact, or rather - the effect of NOT having it is too minimal.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Sandersson Jankins on September 26, 2013, 04:02:16 am
If HP gain is hardcoded into STR that is a problem, unless the yield can be altered - because currently people can make huge STR builds and forego IF because they get so much from STR itself.  Instead, they just put all the points into PS. 

Maybe HP gains from STR could STOP being received above 27 STR or something?

Also, yeah WPF/WM is too weak in its impact, or rather - the effect of NOT having it is too minimal.

I am currently using a 33-12 pure polearm build with 11 powerstrike, 1 ironflesh, 4 athletics, and 4 weaponmaster.

I believe it is overpowered.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: XyNox on September 26, 2013, 05:35:51 am
Add flat WPF reduction instead of percentaged.

Remove free WPF per level, buff WPF gain per WM.

All fixed.

---

Whats that ? You wanna go all str-platecrutch-onehitter ? Have fun swinging as slow as a peasant because you didnt decide to get any WM and cant rely on your 111 free WPF at lvl 30 anymore. Oh and enjoy your negative *x* effective WPF because of the flat WPF reduction of all your plate.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Leman_Russ on September 26, 2013, 08:05:57 pm
As much as it may seem like a great idea to be asking for a major balance change to a core game mechanic, please don't tempt Tydeus.  We don't need anymore extremely ridiculous balancing.  If anything just keep pushing for a WM overhaul.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on September 26, 2013, 08:13:24 pm
WM/WPF overhaul is where I think you should be aiming at as well.

Could be as simple as removing free WPF per level (I think that's the best idea, IMO)...(I don't understand what a flat WPF reduction means/would do).
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Vodner on September 26, 2013, 09:08:59 pm
Quote
(I don't understand what a flat WPF reduction means/would do)
As things stand now, armor encumbrance reduces your WPF by a percentage. This means that high-WM builds are disproportionately punished by encumbrance, whereas low-WM builds lose fewer WPF points.

A flat encumbrance penalty would subtract a fixed number of WPF points per unit of weight over the limit.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on September 26, 2013, 09:14:03 pm
Just wanted to post my thoughts instead of staying forever silent. Staff have their own thoughts on the Wpf curve afaik. Just trying to say that giving people more wpf isn't going to help much (most wear medium armor and it'll all just get taken away), and decreasing strength guys' wpf won't change much either, all because of the way % based reduction is implemented. There would still be an inherent problem.

Ex. for random medium weights
2.7 helmet
13.2 body
1 glove
1.6 boots

wpf
90  -> 74   (-16)
111-> 91   (-20)
146-> 120 (-26) (5WM at lvl 30)
172-> 141 (-31) (8WM at lvl 30)

The more you lower the wpf of guys with an already low value, the less wpf reduction they get anyways. Wpf bonus is pretty linear (~40 wpf = 1 PS, ~15 wpf = 1 weapon speed), so they won't even notice very much. 1 point in WM is ~8 points higher up, but just from increasing WM by 3, 1 of the WM points was almost rendered useless. On the flip side, it just shoehorns people who value wpf into light armor, while people who don't have high wpf can wear almost anything they want. I believe that reducing movement speed and higher difficulty levels (+price) of armor already help people choose how much weight of equipment they should wear, so wpf reduction should be equally punishing for any wpf level.

As far as ranged goes, xbows and throwing are already armor-friendly. Archers with decent armor would still get a reduction, but it won't be crippling, and they'll be even slower when they have a bow out. They would also have to shave a bit more of their primary wpf, making them less accurate vs pure archers, but they would have more of both weapons' proficiencies with decent armor.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on September 26, 2013, 09:16:57 pm
Thanks for explaining WPF % reduction...I thought we were already on a flat reduction rate...  :oops:

san wouldn't your concerns be moot if they went with the flat reduction vs %?  Or is that exactly what you're saying?  These mechanics + maths are not for the layman  :?
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Jona on September 27, 2013, 03:56:56 pm
The way I see it, a 33-3 and a 3-33 build would both be equally feasible if this mod were to be perfectly balanced. The only way a 3-33 build could ever work would be one of those rondel dagger shielders. That is literally the only way. Without a shield you can't do anything with a build like that. And as of now, if a 33-3 and a 3-33 build fought, the 33-3 guy would win all the time, hands down. Even if the agi build was a rondel dagger shielder, sooner or later he would fatally glance on the str build and get cut down in 1 hit.

Also, another problem with strength is that it has far more perks. It not only gives you a ton more hp and much more damage, but it is the only way to unlock higher tiered weapons and armor. Str is what allows you to use a weapon, agility allows you to use them (slightly) more effectively. You would think that at least a bow would have an agility requirement, since agility is generally viewed as "the archer's stat." While that isn't as true about this mod, since you still need high strength to unlock the bow and then of course if you want to do damage you need power draw, agility is what you would commonly have in actual rpg's if you were an archer.  The fact that strength is absolutely necessary for any class is a huge advantage in my opinion. No one ever needs agility. Sure, it is helpful (for some classes more so than others) but strength is an absolute must.

And not only is strength necessary, it also has the better skills. As previously mentioned, powerstrike is definitely good and ironflesh is plenty useful. For agility, athletics is definitely good, while weapon master is just 'meh' at the moment, unless you are ranged... but it seems like we are only focusing on melee at the moment, so I will not really count it as being all that useful.

Another perk of strength builds are all 'the little things.' Having high strength allows you to nudge farther, you are more likely to crushthrough,  you are less likely to get crushthroughed, and also more likely to absorb hits (your opponent will glance on you more often). And does agility get any of these kind of perks? Nope.

In total:

Pros of strength builds:
Total Amount: 8

Pros of agility builds:
Total Amount: 3

See the slight imbalance here?


In my opinion, as it stands now, agility is definitely useful since athletics is such a useful skill, but it still caters much more to the more skilled player. Athletics helps your footwork be more effective and you can therefore play smarter (try to flank enemies to get around their blocks, etc). However, if you are not the best manual blocker, strength is far, far superior. Anyone playing a strength character can jump into the fray and hope to get a couple of kills. You almost never see agility players (unless yoloing) intentionally charge into a mosh pit. They will glance on everything and everyone, and fall from just a couple of hits.

People always complain about how agility builds do nothing but spam so much... while it is true that personally I feint a lot and have a more offensive approach, I definitely try to spam more when on a strength stf character. The reasoning behind this is because if I am going to get blackbarred from just one hit as an agility character... why take the risk of not blocking and hoping I can outrange, outswing, or chamber my opponent? Especially when fighting a strength build, I would hit them and maybe do 1/8 damage... while I myself would get nearly killed. Risk >>> reward. As a strength build, I wouldn't mind losing the 1/8 health if I can successfully chamber my opponent and cripple him in one strike. And I know for a fact that I am not the only player with this mindset. Most of the players who do try and chamber are strength builds. Most of the 'risk taking' players in general are strength builds.. they gladly jump into a mosh pit, try and outswing/outrange their opponents, and as I said before, try and chamber all the time.


So, my first suggestion for improvement here, besides the wpf change, would be to negate the effects of high weight on athletics. Sure, it would be highly unrealistic to be able to sprint around in full plate. I am not asking for a huge nerf to weight's affect, just a minor one so that I can suit up like all the strength characters and not feel like my build is completely useless. Not to mention that even in heavy armor pierce / blunt can still oneshot me (seriously.. those damn steal picks and great mauls). Also, lets not forget that even a pure strength build in full plate armor can still jump 10 yards. There is nothing worse than when I am running away strategically re-positioning  myself away from an opponent in full plate, and they can catch up with a good ole jump stab... even though I have at least 6 more athletics than they do. Heavy armor is not nearly as useful for agility builds as it is for strength builds due to the fact that it so greatly nerfs wpf, athletics, and it is really only useful with high ironflesh.  Personally, I think that nerfing its negative effects just a little would be a huge step in the right direction.


/rant
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on September 27, 2013, 04:48:42 pm
Thanks for explaining WPF % reduction...I thought we were already on a flat reduction rate...  :oops:

san wouldn't your concerns be moot if they went with the flat reduction vs %?  Or is that exactly what you're saying?  These mechanics + maths are not for the layman  :?

Right now it's % based. So basically, if you get a lot of wpf and wear barely any decent protection for a melee, you get your wpf reduced almost twice as much as someone who didn't put any points in WM. To put it bluntly, they're rewarded for no reason. Change the wpf curve and the problem will still be there, str crutchers would barely lose any wpf and agi builds will just wear no armor and attack lightning fast. The wpf ceiling is already pretty high, but then wpf gets reduced to 120-140 for almost everyone. Armor already makes you slower and high agi builds can't wear certain armor anyways (difficulty for body armor is quite low IMO), so it's overly punishing.


Edit:
@Jona
Movement speed reduction from weight is surprisingly fair IMO. I previously thought that heavy armor made agility builds move almost as slow as strength builds in the same armor, but according to this chart from WaltF4, it's actually quite linear. (source: http://forum.melee.org/beginner%27s-help-and-guides/running-in-crpg/)
(click to show/hide)
Draw a horizontal line at any weight value and you see that you move as fast as if you had ~7-8 lighter weight of armor for 3agi+1ath.
An agi build with decent armor still moves quite fast. Plate-tier armor is around the 30-35 weight value. (4h+24b+2g+3l = 33 for instance)
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Templar_Steevee on September 27, 2013, 05:22:53 pm
Buffing WM -> Fuc**** ranged they are shooting headshots all the time from insane range
Buffing ATH -> Fuc****  archers you cannot catch them, and those x-bow my old friends they are running like a wind.

Try to think about that also :)
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on September 27, 2013, 05:28:55 pm
Archers wear little enough armor to not lose wpf. Ath unchanged. Only ranged class that would benefit is the archer with medium armor (still less accurate than light armor archers and weighed down by 20 extra weight on top of medium armor).
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Jona on September 27, 2013, 06:20:56 pm
Right now it's % based. So basically, if you get a lot of wpf and wear barely any decent protection for a melee, you get your wpf reduced almost twice as much as someone who didn't put any points in WM. To put it bluntly, they're rewarded for no reason. Change the wpf curve and the problem will still be there, str crutchers would barely lose any wpf and agi builds will just wear no armor and attack lightning fast. The wpf ceiling is already pretty high, but then wpf gets reduced to 120-140 for almost everyone. Armor already makes you slower and high agi builds can't wear certain armor anyways (difficulty for body armor is quite low IMO), so it's overly punishing.


Edit:
@Jona
Movement speed reduction from weight is surprisingly fair IMO. I previously thought that heavy armor made agility builds move almost as slow as strength builds in the same armor, but according to this chart from WaltF4, it's actually quite linear. (source: http://forum.melee.org/beginner%27s-help-and-guides/running-in-crpg/)
(click to show/hide)
Draw a horizontal line at any weight value and you see that you move as fast as if you had ~7-8 lighter weight of armor for 3agi+1ath.
An agi build with decent armor still moves quite fast. Plate-tier armor is around the 30-35 weight value. (4h+24b+2g+3l = 33 for instance)

Interesting.. I had heard before that the higher the athletics the higher the movement speed nerf (like how wpf works). But the one thing that MIGHT be true that isn't included in his extensive testing (and by not included I mean I didn't see it in my quick skimming) is acceleration. I feel that when wearing light armor I am instantly fast and can zip around and turn on the dime, etc. Once I get the heavy armor out I feel like I CAN indeed run fast, but only after running in a straight line for a while... I still feel like everyone in heavy armor moves the same for the first 2-3 seconds of moving, and that you don't reach maximum speed until 4-5 seconds... which is how those strength builds in just as heavy armor can catch up so easily.

Which brings up another point... acceleration is way too long in my opinion. I can understand that you can't just start running full speed instantaneously... but even in real life you only accelerate to max speed in just about 3 seconds. And that is from a standstill to full sprint. In this game you only ever jog (if not power walk) at best. Now maybe the acceleration from 0 to max is indeed less than 5 seconds, but the fact that this game is so otherwise fast paced it just feels like it takes too long as it is. 

Have any tests on acceleration been done that you know of?  It was mentioned several times on WaltF4's post that many others feel the same... acceleration is highly important and higher armor has more of a significant affect on acceleration times as opposed to max speed.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on September 27, 2013, 07:32:13 pm
I remember a person did do some acceleration tests on the arena map a few years back, but I can't find it. Without some sort of frame advance tech, it'll be difficult to get anything concrete just from personal experience. I can't really tell with just my 5ath and 8ath characters whether or not acceleration is more heavily affected. Don't have heavy armor, too.. When I had 18 weight body armor and 8ath, I still felt like my acceleration was good. With my 5ath character, anything past 13 body armor is quite slow. This is something that needs to be looked at frame by frame.

In the end, I just assume the running is close to the acceleration.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Jona on September 28, 2013, 07:00:23 am
I remember a person did do some acceleration tests on the arena map a few years back, but I can't find it. Without some sort of frame advance tech, it'll be difficult to get anything concrete just from personal experience. I can't really tell with just my 5ath and 8ath characters whether or not acceleration is more heavily affected. Don't have heavy armor, too.. When I had 18 weight body armor and 8ath, I still felt like my acceleration was good. With my 5ath character, anything past 13 body armor is quite slow. This is something that needs to be looked at frame by frame.

In the end, I just assume the running is close to the acceleration.

It could potentially work if you just did short-ranged sprints. Harder to analyze (need a lower percent error), but if there is less of a significant difference between armor weight at shorter distances, it can be assumed that acceleration is a key factor that is more affected by weight than maximum speed. If all the plotted lines converge to the same time when decked out in the max weight, regardless of athletics, then it sucks to be an agi build. ;)


I would carry this out, but man.. that would take a lot of effort.   :lol:
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Thomek on September 28, 2013, 10:41:52 am
if you can video with stable fps that might be a way to figure out acceleration directly. Without trying to derive it from timing runs at different lengths.

Zoom in and stand far away for most accurate results. And let the player start the run mid-frame.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Fartface on September 28, 2013, 04:31:53 pm
Well if all of the sudden you don“t get free WPP anymore alot of the lvl 32 + players will suddenly have a worthless build and QQ like mad.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on October 01, 2013, 11:10:03 pm
if you can video with stable fps that might be a way to figure out acceleration directly. Without trying to derive it from timing runs at different lengths.

Zoom in and stand far away for most accurate results. And let the player start the run mid-frame.

I might try this out soon with multiple stf builds and record it. I believe it may still be directly tied to maximum run speed.

My focus is still on making agility builds better with just average armor. Agility builds already move great in average armor, but WM is a different story. You can wear a strength build with lighter armor and get the best of all worlds. That's what I did with my main shielder, because it was too effective not to ignore. The higher PS allowed for earlier hits at extreme angles and outswing agility builds.

Agility builds are already quite good (due to athletics) and only need a small bump to keep them in line. Toning down what strength builds can get away with for free also helps.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: MURDERTRON on October 02, 2013, 12:39:37 am
Can't you just make AGI add WPF?
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Phew on October 04, 2013, 08:46:36 pm
Agree on all accounts san. Skills other than PS and athletics are just too weak right now; if you are lvl 34+, why use any build other than 30/18? Fast and hit like a truck.

Ironflesh, shield, weapon master, riding; these skill need to be more attractive options beyond just meeting item requirements or as a place for leftover points.

Is Dec 2010 here yet? Really looking forward to Weapon Master/wpf changes.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on October 05, 2013, 03:52:03 pm
Shield sounds great in single player. So does Weapon Master (helps you gain wpf quicker along with the base amount added). But in multiplayer, shields are plentiful, so it's similar to riding giving horses more armor and health.

IF is a great throwaway skill until you directly compare it to other skills.

For melee, it's a choice of 6-7IF vs. 1Ath: allowing up to 7.5 weight more armor that would protect you better than 12-14 health. Getting negative speed bonus or moving into opponent's poor attack areas also help better than a mere ~14 extra health.

or 6-7IF vs. 1.5IF + 1PS: Killing opponents in less hits, stacks well with high base damage weapons, and you only lose 7 health.

Even 4-6 WM is worth more than a PS. Because PS doesn't scale as well with 1h weapons, I chose the former route on my main today. Switched to 18-27 0IF with good armor and I already got complaints about how many hits it takes to kill me by the 2nd map. 0IF needs to be more punishing, especially with higher strength. Even 18 strength gives me similar health to 12 strength 4IF, only 2 tiers away. 24 and higher and you get a significant power increase while still being as tanky as the playerbase, if not more.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: brockssn on October 30, 2013, 04:06:46 pm
Shield sounds great in single player. So does Weapon Master (helps you gain wpf quicker along with the base amount added). But in multiplayer, shields are plentiful, so it's similar to riding giving horses more armor and health.

IF is a great throwaway skill until you directly compare it to other skills.

For melee, it's a choice of 6-7IF vs. 1Ath: allowing up to 7.5 weight more armor that would protect you better than 12-14 health. Getting negative speed bonus or moving into opponent's poor attack areas also help better than a mere ~14 extra health.

or 6-7IF vs. 1.5IF + 1PS: Killing opponents in less hits, stacks well with high base damage weapons, and you only lose 7 health.

Even 4-6 WM is worth more than a PS. Because PS doesn't scale as well with 1h weapons, I chose the former route on my main today. Switched to 18-27 0IF with good armor and I already got complaints about how many hits it takes to kill me by the 2nd map. 0IF needs to be more punishing, especially with higher strength. Even 18 strength gives me similar health to 12 strength 4IF, only 2 tiers away. 24 and higher and you get a significant power increase while still being as tanky as the playerbase, if not more.

what level are you? just wondering because at 30, 18-27 only gives you 11 skill points which seems useless, at 31 you would only have 14 which is still useless (9 ath, 5PS), 32 would get you 17 which is still inconceivable (9ath, 6PS, 2 shield), 33 would be 20 (9ath, 6PS, 5WM)? Did you miss type or do you have magical skill points? I know you have at least 4 shield, 6PS, 9ath, but saw you on a cataphract horse too so you had 5 riding as well. It just doesnt add up so I'm guessing it was a typo?

And yes if that was 0IF, I hit you with a 42 cut wep with 7PS a lot and you lived :D
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on October 30, 2013, 04:12:08 pm
He's high level, 35 I believe.  I didn't think he had 5 riding (thought it was only 3, but that may have been before his respec)
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on October 30, 2013, 04:19:06 pm
I was 25/15 with 95 wpf in polearms. Equivalent in power to a 6 or 7PS pure lancer. 5 riding. I mostly used a rouncey in battle because it survived decently enough, only time I ever used a cataphract was strat.
Edit: On second thought, it's probably a bit more than your average 7PS pure.

I played with a 15/24 stf for a few months and a couple weeks ago respec'd my main to 18/27 with 2 shield so I have another perspective with agi builds.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: brockssn on October 30, 2013, 04:40:05 pm
what level are you? just wondering because at 30, 18-27 only gives you 11 skill points which seems useless, at 31 you would only have 14 which is still useless (9 ath, 5PS), 32 would get you 17 which is still inconceivable (9ath, 6PS, 2 shield), 33 would be 20 (9ath, 6PS, 5WM)? Did you miss type or do you have magical skill points? I know you have at least 4 shield, 6PS, 9ath, but saw you on a cataphract horse too so you had 5 riding as well. It just doesnt add up so I'm guessing it was a typo?

And yes if that was 0IF, I hit you with a 42 cut wep with 7PS a lot and you lived :D

ah IC:

Level 36

Code: (Pure 1h+Shield) [Select]
Level:           36
Strength:        18
Agility:         27
Skill to attr:    8
Hp: 53
Ironflesh:        0
Power Strike:     6
Athletics:        9
Shield:           5
Weapon Master:    9

One Handed:     185
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Phew on October 30, 2013, 05:49:37 pm
My only issue with strength is how it enables ridiculously large sweet spots, particularly with 2h animations. Duel someone like Tretter that's full strength+plate 2h;

-you use your superior agility to maneuver behind him, thinking you've set up a perfect strike
-you swing and glance, because plate
-he isn't even remotely facing you, but he swings anyway and hits for full damage because power strike

Strength builds are actually rewarded for bad footwork. Agility builds are punished for good footwork.

I'd like to see the animation sweet spot size be purely a function of weapon master or wpf, instead of raw damage. That alone would fix agility/strength balance, IMHO.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Jona on October 30, 2013, 05:54:36 pm
My only issue with strength is how it enables ridiculously large sweet spots, particularly with 2h animations. Duel someone like Tretter that's full strength+plate 2h;

-you use your superior agility to maneuver behind him, thinking you've set up a perfect strike
-you swing and glance, because plate
-he isn't even remotely facing you, but he swings anyway and hits for full damage because power strike

Strength builds are actually rewarded for bad footwork. Agility builds are punished for good footwork.

I'd like to see the animation sweet spot size be purely a function of weapon master or wpf, instead of raw damage. That alone would fix agility/strength balance, IMHO.

If anything at all would increase the sweet spot, weapon proficiency makes the most sense. However, I think it should be static and is only dependent on player skill.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on November 01, 2013, 11:38:48 pm
Good news everyone.

I found cmp's post on the taleworlds forums about Speed and Acceleration:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


I found out a few things that can be shown in these graphs

Acceleration

(click to show/hide)

Movement Speed (I think the stuff that cmp omitted for readability is really important, so this graph doesn't really make much sense right now)

(click to show/hide)

I learned a few interesting things:

1. Weapon Length + Weight is only for max speed, but does nil for acceleration.
2. Even high equipment weight yields a decent maximum speed (They still move slower, though, so there must be more to the formula like cmp says or I made a mistake)
3. Armor reduces acceleration by a lot. (heavy = 30, medium = 20, light = 10). Above 30 should be ignored for the most part, just wanted to get it in the graph.
4. As we thought, Athletics is mostly for acceleration, but agility has a more pronounced effect on maximum speed than I thought.
**5**. Acceleration differences are more prominent at lower athletics values with diminishing returns as you get higher.

Looking at the last point, I need someone else to look this over since I've always thought the opposite.

Edit: For copy and paste purposes
Code: [Select]
agilityMod = (agility * 0.7 + athletics * 3.0 + 25.0);
weaponWeightMod = wieldedItemWeight * wieldedItemLength * 2.5;
maxSpeed = (agilityMod * 70.0 / (equippedItemsWeight + weaponWeightMod + 70.0) + 90.0) / 100.0;

agilityModAccel = (athletics / 6.0 + (agility + 2.0) / 15.0);
maxAcceleration = (agilityModAccel * 40.0 / (equippedItemsWeight + 40.0) + 1.0) * 70.0 / (equippedItemsWeight + 70.0) * 5.0;

Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Tydeus on November 04, 2013, 02:06:41 pm
We are still awaiting the WM rework right? Idk where Tydeus took that one..
(click to show/hide)
Actual ETA: ... do I really need to say it?

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Thomek on November 05, 2013, 05:21:28 am
We are all happy you are back Tydeus :)

There are some urgent issues with the 1h stab..
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Xant on November 05, 2013, 05:24:25 am
Yes, call the Ghostbusters, 1h stab is actually *gasp* useful now. This cannot stand!
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Tydeus on November 05, 2013, 05:53:05 am
Currently testing various 1hers, particularly gauging thrusts. I have yet to be convinced anything major needs done. I've stolen several 1hers from the Nordmen armory but I still, personally, find their NCS to be the best with my 15/24 1h/throwing hybrid. Well, my Niuweidao, then their NCS.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: San on November 05, 2013, 07:01:03 am
Reverting the 1h stab damage buffs before the animation change is mostly just -1 pierce (not a big deal) and puts the weapons at more of a 1:1 damage tradeoff with the italian sword, the most "balanced" 1h. Side Sword had -1 pierce, -1 cut, and +1 speed before, not sure if that's better or worse than what we have now. Scottish got heavily buffed, but it only needs a small readjustment to put it in line with the other shortswords.

I still think 1h stab is easy to facehug, and the buff to 1h right swing allows other 1hs to compete at a distance. Left swing + facehugging already lets them compete up close. I can't say how badly skeying 2hers and polearmers have it, but 1h vs 1h non-stab, stabbing isn't that difficult to deal with.

Daggers also need a usable without shield tag or the same penalty 2h has with shield IMO. Then buff a lot of the non-rondel daggers.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Phew on November 05, 2013, 03:04:13 pm
Reverting the 1h stab damage buffs before the animation change is mostly just -1 pierce (not a big deal) and puts the weapons at more of a 1:1 damage tradeoff with the italian sword, the most "balanced" 1h. Side Sword had -1 pierce, -1 cut, and +1 speed before, not sure if that's better or worse than what we have now. Scottish got heavily buffed, but it only needs a small readjustment to put it in line with the other shortswords.

Agreed, the animation is right where it should be; functional but still has limitations (it's still extremely difficult to stab someone that's hugging your right arm).

It's the weapon stats that are off; the stabby 1h weapons got buffed to compensate for the thrust animation being terrible, but now that the animation is good, the thrust stats should be brought back to earth. Side sword especially needs to have its stats adjusted slightly. San is right, every 1h sword should be compared against the Italian in terms of balance, and Side Sword gains too much (+5 pierce at Masterwork) for giving up too little (1 cut and 3cm reach).

I bet most of you people complaining about the 1h thrust were the same people complaining "combat is too slow"; well, Tydeus effectively sped up the slow 1h/pole animations to be as fast as their 2h counterparts, and now combat is faster-paced. The new 1h thrust was a "surprise attack" for a couple weeks after the patch, but now the good players have adjusted and it seems like 1h/pole/2h animations are more balanced than they've ever been.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Tydeus on November 05, 2013, 05:00:46 pm
Indeed, I too like where the Italian sword is. Unfortunately, I think it's time we start duplicating item stats.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Phew on November 05, 2013, 05:05:42 pm
Indeed, I too like where the Italian sword is. Unfortunately, I think it's time we start duplicating item stats.

Or allow non-integer damage values. I don't think anyone would complain if weapons like the Arming Sword, Long Arming Sword, Arabian Arming Sword, etc were given useful stats, even if they duplicated the stats of other weapons. I like seeing a variety of weapon models on the battlefield.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Ronin on November 05, 2013, 06:17:51 pm
I think 1h thrust was underpowered before the new sweetspots, now it's a bit overpowered. I'd say, something in between would be the best. Awlpike and 2h thrusts should be a little bit tweaked too.

Strength versus agility? It's fine at the moment.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Matey on November 05, 2013, 07:59:55 pm
I think 1h thrust was underpowered before the new sweetspots, now it's a bit overpowered. I'd say, something in between would be the best. Awlpike and 2h thrusts should be a little bit tweaked too.

Strength versus agility? It's fine at the moment.

I think 1h thrust is where it needs to be right now for the most part but that a few of the weapons (the shorter, faster stabbier ones) need to be looked at a bit.
also is still better than agi. i want my wpf rework.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Jona on November 06, 2013, 12:56:13 am
Nerf rondel and espada. Done.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Xant on November 06, 2013, 01:02:32 am
Espada doesn't need a nerf. People are just way too used to an underpowered 1h stab. Nothing wrong with it.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Jarlek on November 06, 2013, 09:51:16 pm
Currently testing various 1hers, particularly gauging thrusts. I have yet to be convinced anything major needs done. I've stolen several 1hers from the Nordmen armory but I still, personally, find their NCS to be the best with my 15/24 1h/throwing hybrid. Well, my Niuweidao, then their NCS.
So you're this bigoli who's currently molesting my beautiful 1handed swords!

EDIT: Happy now tydaus?
Let's see if he notices.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Tydeus on November 06, 2013, 11:50:39 pm
So you're this bisoli who's currently molesting my beautiful 1handed swords!
Bigoli! Get your pasta right, son.
Title: Re: Balancing Strength
Post by: Jarlek on November 07, 2013, 02:32:49 am
Bigoli! Get your pasta right, son.
Whoopsy daisy.

That's what I get for typing names from memory :)

Be gentle with my babies though.