“Balance Philosophy” and why I think “X” is less UP/OP than you might think.

[Stokes]

Grab a drink, pull up a chair, and get comfy, ‘cause this post is longer than most. Anyways:

After seeing countless threads declaring that some weapon type is overpowered, or underpowered, I started thinking about the pros and cons of the various weapon types as well as their place on the battlefield as a whole. My conclusion is that on the whole, the various weapon types are pretty well balanced against each other and that any incongruencies are probably due to player skill, a lack of understanding of the way the game is meant to be balanced, or in rare cases, a particular item being slightly too over/underpowered.

First, it is important to remember that Warband is first and foremost a skill-based game. A better player will more often beat a lesser player one on one. The larger the gap between skill levels, the less equipment plays into the outcome of the fight.

But, in order to discuss game balance, we first need to assume that all players are of equal/comparable skill and then see how various equipment types match up to each other. If one single weapon type dominates the field in all cases, then we have imbalance. If a weapon type is stronger against some weapon types but weaker against others, then we are closer to balance and balance = variety and fun.

First, let’s talk about the three basic infantry roles on the battlefield: The shield fighter (polearm/1h), The non-shield fighter (polearm/2h), and the ranged user (xbow/bow/throw).  I have seen complaints against all three types. Archers often complain that shields are too powerful, Two-handers or polearm users who do not use a shield complain that ranged weapons are too powerful, and of course shield users complain of being “spammed” by two-handers or polearm users.

In my opinion, many of these complaints are born out a misunderstanding of the way Warband works. The way I see it, there is a soft “Rock Paper Scissors” mechanic in the game that many players don’t seem to understand. I say “soft” because player skill is much more important than "having the right counter". This isn't WoW, it's a medieval FPS. (Yes, in this case it's also an RPG, I get it!)

Here is a diagram of how the three basic infantry archetypes should be and are balanced in my opinion:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



What this diagram shows is that, assuming all players are of equal skill, 1h shield users should have a slight advantage over ranged users, ranged users should have a slight advantage over 2h shield-less users, and 2h shield-less users should have a slight advantage over 1h shield users. This means that, based on equipment, you should be able to beat players of equal skill slightly more often based on the equipment you bring to the field.

What happens then is some equipment types are naturally more suited to fighting particular enemies. When shielders complain about being “spammed” by two-handed users, in many cases they are simply complaining about being defeated by their natural counter. Likewise, when two-handers complain that ranged weapons are too powerful, they are simply complaining about their own natural counter… forgetting of course the speed and damage advantage they gain by not using a shield in melee.

Now that my “philosophy of balance” has been explained, let’s take a look at each weapon proficiency type.

(click to show/hide)

One-handed
One handed weapons are primarily used with a shield for defense. Shields are the only thing that protect against projectiles, and using a shield in a fight allows the user to block from multiple directions, multiple enemies, and multiple weapon types. Shields provide the easiest defense abilities at the cost of some speed and damage.
-   1h has some customization abilities, but is somewhat limited in choices. It basically comes down to weak, but quick swords, slow, but powerful maces, or moderately fast axes that crush other shields.
-       One handers can effectively defend against multiple enemies (2h users can effectively attack against multiple enemies)
-   PROtip: 1h users can gain some extra speed and damage if they find they are being attacked faster than they can retaliate by putting away their shield. They lose some defense capabilities of course, but depending on their weapon, they can often fight as quick or sometimes even quicker than their two-handed or polearm bretheren.

Bottom Line: Extra defense at the cost of offensive power and very limited weapon choices.

Why I think it's balanced: If you use a shield you are able to defend against the most types of attacks and if you play defensively, this is the build for you. I've seen shielders take on 3+ enemies because they can block from so many directions at once. Also, 1h weapons are fast when used without a shield, so if you're struggling for speed, you can still drop the shield on occasion for that extra boost.

Possible fixes:
I don’t have very much experience in cRPG with 1h-shield builds so my advice is limited. I have heard many players complain that the weight and speed on shields is such that they become almost a liability in melee combat, rather than an important defensive boost. Without much experience I tend to agree with this sentiment, however I leave the reader to judge. Also they have relatively limited weapon choices compared to the other melee proficiencies, but I think that is the trade off you get for gaining the use of the shield.

Two-handed
Two handed weapons are arguably the fastest and most powerful weapons in melee. They sacrifice the defensive power of the shield for the extra reach and damage of the two-handers. Unfortunately they can only block in one single direction, and once engaged (they have put away their shield), they are easy targets for ranged. Often a two-hander’s best defense is a good offense – this has led many to accuse two-handers of “spamming” attacks.
-   Two handed is more versatile than 1h in terms of weapon choices. From quick swords, to long swords, to axes, to mauls, they have more options than one handed which gives them a bit more versatility in melee.
-       Two handers can effectively attack against multiple enemies (one handers can effectively defend against multiple enemies)
-   You MUST learn to manual block to play Two-handed effectively. In my opinion learning to play two-handed well takes more time and effort than 1h + shield, simply because of this fact.

Bottom Line: Offensive beast, but vulnerable from ranged and the players ability to manual block.

Why I think 2h are balanced: Two handers are fast, powerful, and deadly, but they are toast from ranged users. They need to drop their shield to fight. Two handers are good dueling weapons, but this is sometimes impractical in large battles. In order for 2h to be effective in large fights, they must learn to turn their defensive into offense. Good players use 2h well by dishing out more than they take. Call it spam, I call it playing 2h effectively.

Possible Fixes:
I’ll start by saying I’m a bit biased towards two handed, as it is my favorite class. Aside from perhaps tweaking some of the weapons (I’m looking at you, barmace), I think the class as a whole is in a good spot. Many disagree, but I think this comes from a lack of understanding of the two-hander’s place as a massive damage dealing monster.

Polearm
Polearms are by far the most versatile weapon class. They can be used with a shield, without a shield, on horseback, on foot, they’re excellent at long range, excellent at short range, they have all three types of damage in abundance, they have some of the fastest weapons as well as some of the slowest and most damaging. Polearms rock.
-   You can find a counter for almost anything in the polearm proficiency. They can do the duty of a two-hander, yet still fight as a shielder if the need arises. Besides that, they also carry the only dedicated cavalry killer, (pike), as well as the preferred dedicated cavalry weapon, (lance).

Bottom line: Powerful and incredibly, incredibly versatile for only one type of wpf.

Why I think it's balanced: Polearms fill a variety of roles and they do each well. Polearms are the necessary ingredient for cavalry and anti cavarly and the battlefield just wouldn't be the same without polearms. Polearms are the ultimate support weapon with their reach, but good players can also duel with them pretty well. On the downside, most polearms must be used without a shield to be effective, which balances polearms out with ranged users.

Possible fixes:
If anything is “overpowered” about polearms, it’s that somebody with a polearm can fulfill so many different roles on the battlefield, just based on weapon choice. In my opinion, I think polearms are fine, however and the only thing that I would like to see is the longer polearms doing less damage at point blank range. I’ve been killed many times or had 75% of my health destroyed by people using the longest polearms even when I’m literally facehugging them. In fact, I say this for all weapons. If you’re using a longer weapon you should do considerably less damage up close, in my opinion. Other then that, polearms are great. Oh, and using a polearm with a shield is pitiful in speed and damage and is SO easy to block. Please, at least allow the shield/polearm user to do an up attack and a down attack... many mods already do this and I think this is a GREAT fix.

Archery
Archery takes a lot of skill-point investment (not to mention player skill investment) to master. Also, archers must wear the lightest of armor to stay competitive. For most, archery is far from a secondary skill since you need a lot of PD and wpf to get hits and kills. The cut damage also makes them deal lower damage per hit than crossbows or ranged and they are the only ranged weapon that cannot aim indefinitely due to fatigue.  Still, with the right skillpoint investments, archery is very deadly and is still a very popular class
 - The archer’s ability to rapidly fire really changes the battlefield as well, since even if the archer doesn’t hit, he forces the enemy to pull out their shields and face in the direction of the archer, potentially giving your team the advantage in melee.

Bottom line: Skill point heavy, hard to master, takes many hits to kill, but very very useful on the battlefield.

Why I think it's balanced: Archers may get less kills on average than other players, but more often then not they are the battle changers. They can attack most easily without any fear of harm and every hit they give distracts the enemy and allows the team to do well. They are also the necessary counter for massed infantry, good two-handers, and light cavalry. On the downside, it takes a lot of points and time to master archery, which balances it out.

Possible fixes: I think archery is in a pretty good spot right now. I’m not so sure about the damage nerf they received in the last patch, but so far I think it balances out with the fact that shields are smaller now. Also, I think the longbow could use some love. It’s sooo slow for only 30 damage. That’s my own personal opinion however and probably not very high on the “needed balance” list.

Crossbows
Easy to use, easy to master, low skill point investment. For 100 wpf you can get crossbows up to decent accuracy and damage. Sure, their slow to reload, but if you have cover, once you’ve reloaded you have an infinite amount of time to aim your shot, which can be invaluable. Crossbows are a great secondary skill for hybrids.

Bottom line: Very powerful for minimal skill investment

Why I think it's balanced: A bit more expensive to maintain than archery, and probably less game changing due to the very slow rate of fire. Still, you can get some good hits and kills with it and it's less skill point intensive, which balances it out.

Possible fixes: Some complain about the price of crossbows. I tend to agree. Crossbows are meant to be the little cousin of archers for those who don’t want to have to mess up their builds with skill points in power draw and athletics. With their price, however, you can’t really bring in a crossbow and your good gear very economically. Perhaps this is chadz’s intention. If so, leave it be. Some complain about the damage as well. I think damage is fine, considering it retains it’s pierce damage. I think damage is balanced by the fact that headshots are easier with a crossbow than, say a bow, in my opinion.

Throwing
Ahh, throwing. I’ve seen many complaints about throwing lately. I have less experience with throwing in cRPG, although I did play it a lot in native, so bear with me.  I’m speaking mostly out of observation rather than first hand experience.  With the recent archer nerfs and the speed nerfs to crossbows compared to native, throwing has become the number 1 one hit wonder weapon for ranged. Still, like archery, it takes a large amount of skill points to get high damage and you get a lot less ammunition. The projectiles are slower too, and easier to dodge. I think it’s most frustrating to die to throwing, however, since half the time it just seems like bad luck rather than your enemies skill was the deciding factor in why you’re lying dead with an axe in your head,– and most of the time you’re totally right. Throwing is so inaccurate that sometimes it’s better for the enemy to be aiming AT you. Then they’ll have a better chance of missing!

Bottom line: Inaccurate, slow projectiles, but they pack a helluva punch. Enough to one shot in some cases.

Why I think it's balanced: Inaccurate, takes a lot of points, slow moving projectiles, and short range balances out with very high damage

Possible Fixes:
Maaaaaybe the damage should be lowered… Maybe. I’d hate to see throwers disappear due to nerfs, as annoying as they are. You know what, one second thought, I think it’s fine. It’s still freaking annoying though  Also, throwers are able to throw one after another very fast, which some think may need a nerf. I’m undecided on this, but it is worth thinking about.

Conclusion, and a note on Cavalry

The final thing to look at is the effect of cavalry. I won't go into detail on cavalry since I don't think they fit as well into the "rock paper scissors" type of balance that the infantry have. Having a horse is expensive, but it also drastically changes your role on the battlefield. You might be fast and powerful, but skilled players will still be able to take you down.

Right now Cavalry are very expensive to maintain and are a bit rarer on the battlefield. Pikes offer a good counter to cavalry, and having a few pikemen with the infantry is very effective in stopping cavalry. Archers, crossbows, and throwers are also great counters to light cavalry as long as they're paying attention. Flanking light cavalry often take these guys out unawares as they focus their attention elsewhere. I think this is how it should be... Heavy cavalry are very very powerful, on the other hand. They can be a game changer. However, they are very expensive. I don't particularly like their power or their price, and I think both should be lowered, but that is simply personal preference.  Light cavalry are fine, however, and I think for their price they should be as good as they are.

Thanks for reading. Discuss!

[Xenocide]

Isn't it pike -> cav -> rang -> inf -> pike? i know it worked like that in age of empires ^^.

[Paul]

Very nice work. Soon alot of the lobbyist scum will start their whine in this thread though.

[Stokes]

Isn't it pike -> cav -> rang -> inf -> pike? i know it worked like that in age of empires ^^.

Yeah, generally this is true, however I wanted to focus more on individual proficiencies, since that is where most of the complaints seem to lie. Two-handers complain archers are too strong, shielders complain two-handers are too strong, etc.

Also, in Warband at least, (and historically too in some notable cases), if the archers are paying attention they can do some solid damage to Cavalry.

Very nice work. Soon alot of the lobbyist scum will start their whine in this thread though.

Yeah, well, right now it doesn't look like most of them know how to find their way deep into the dark hole of "Balance Discussion". We're like three subforums away from general discussion, haha.

[Magikarp]

On the cavalry thing, I think Light Horses are a bit to expensive to repair atm.

While the cost forbuying them is fine, the cost to repair them is too high.

I think (light?) horses should therefore have a lower repair cost than other items.

It's just so expensive to ride around with a shield, a sword, a lance, mediocre armour and a light horse. While it should be possible with that setup to have a reasonable income.

[Morieff]

I agree for light cavalery. Really expensive to maintain my courser and less cavalery implying more archer/throwers etc.

Stokes thanks for your well-constructed and argumented post.

I agree with you for your vision of balancing, except about my post about balancing and some ranged-char issues.

Classes are balanced, but not the stats. The most important is agi. You can't think being viable without invest a lot in agi. Str is not really important by now. That why i made post about :

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,923.0.html

About ranged classes i think a small nerf about damage is needed. I'm usually 1hit by throwers, why not ? But i'have currently 29Str,7 IF, and Lamellar armor@48+8 gauntlets. Something like 75 pv? A bit too powerfull ? For archer, i suggest speed nerf, to avoid automatic magnums bow. Damage is fine. I preferred before last patch, but too much whines...

[huscarl_johnson]

put like, hooves stamping all over the three archetypes and you might be slightly less wrong

[Teeth]

The game is very balanced now in my opinion, im a shieldless 2h and I dont feel like being constantly raped by throwers and other rangeds. 1h with shields are still a challenge cause they strike pretty fast even with their heavyweight shields. I feel really good about the balance.

[zagibu]

There are some problems with your analysis.

1. As can be seen on the picture you provided, shields can be carried by anyone. This means that the 2h/polearm class has the same advantages against archers as 1h+shield. You might take 1 arrow, if you are unlucky, but a dedicated archer is still mostly dead.
2. Archers are also 2handers or polearmers. It's easy to build a 15/24 or an 18/21 archer at level 31 with high WPF in both archery and one of the melee skills. And the spam problem allows them to be very effective in melee, too.
3. A 2h or polearm has another advantage you didn't really cover, probably because you don't play a lot of siege, where this is important. Their range allows them to be used from the second row, killing an enemy that is occupied with a shielder. I often pick up flamberges, long spiked maces or similar on the battlefield, and although I have no WPF in those skills, I get around 25% of my kills with those weapons, from the second row.
4. In tight spots, which are common on siege maps, the short reach of 1h is actually an advantage. That's the reason why on siege servers, 1h+shield users can rise much higher in the scoreboard than on battle servers.

[Joker86]

I think you have a small flaw in your argumentation, which doesn't change much though:

I do NOT think 2hd is supposed to be faster than 1hd. 2hd already has got high reach and high damage, and if you can block manually the shield of the 1hd won't make this up, I think. And finally I think it's common sense you can swing small, light weapons faster than big, nasty ones.

(I am not a lobby whiner, I am 2hd polearm AGI spammer)

Despite of that it's just a perfect post, although I would say it's a bit too sketchy. For example I wouldn't put pikemen and two handers into one category, as well as there are greater differences between archers, crossbowmen and throwers. (Especially latter often are closer to shield infantry than to ranged).

And finally: you can't take some of the existing classes, put them into a rock-paper-siccors-system, and ignore some other classes (like cavalry), which could change the whole system, because they could have a place between two other classes of the circle, or even being located at several places of the circle, making something like a 3d-construction of it.

But I can understand why you are "afraid" of evaluating cavalry. I think it's a rather overpowered class due to biased thinking from history, movies, games and especially M&B singleplayer. Enabling a player to perform as battering ram (like heavy cav) can NEVER achieve balance, so this must NEVER be possible.

I wrote it somewhere else: cavalry has severe advantages over infantry.

- horse speed grants greater protection
- horse speed grants greater flexibility
- horse speed grants higher speed bonus
- horse knockdown is unblockable, usually you need to inflict high damage with a blunt weapon for this effect, and those can be blocked in many cases
- horses cause bump damage and weaken or even kill your enemies by simply pressing [W]

You have to pay this with:

- a few points in riding skill
- higher upkeep

As you can see, the few skill points don't make this up really, so the rest needs to be balanced by the upkeep. The problem is: I don't want to eliminate cavalry from the battlefield, but all those advantages need a really high upkeep for balance! So the only reasonably solution is a severe cavalry nerf concerning stats, skills and equipment.


Finally some basic rules concerning balance:

1.: The efficiency (=amount of frags) of a player should be equal to the effort (= skill, concentration, risk) he puts into the game.

2.: The game always needs to be balanced between the player, not between one player and the game. This means that equipment has to be balanced ONLY by the efficiency on the battlefield, and not by the time (= XP or gold) it took for a certain player, to achieve it. Best example: the atomic bomb, killing the entire enemy team once thrown. Balancable by price or required stats? Answer: never! Once a thing is on the battlefield you don't care how long the owner had to grind for it. His grinding has no effect to the game balance at this moment. Price balancing is just to adjust the motivation aspect of developing your character, nothing more!

3.: Although the rock-paper-siccors-system (RPSS) is a good base and often quite fun, it has to be limited somehow, and made up by skill. Greatest issue here: horse archer vs. 2hd infantry. Currently the HA is a laserblaster, burning the paper and melting stone and siccors.

4.: In Warband skills has always to be more important than stats and equipment.

5.: Classes have to be balanced BOTH by the average player skill AND the maximum possible efficiency of a player who achieved mastership. There is no sense in a mostly balanced class which either grants skilled player a massive advantage OR limits them more than other classes. Also a class which is rather difficult to play, but once mastered unstoppably powerful, is breaking game balance. This is a conflict with point 1, but it's obvious such a class would sooner or later be overrepresented and thus dominating.

[Nindur]

How the hell can you think of the HA now as a laser blaster? Maybe you play on EU but on the NA server there are maybe 3 good Horse Archers, Murchad, Gash, and Loz, everyone else is a scrub that I laugh at with my 1h/sheild. HA got nerfed to pieces in the patch and I love it. I also agree with the OP first point,  that skill takes precedent over all. This is what determines who wins and who losses, I would gladly fight 80% of the NA players on a Plated charger using only a pitchfork. I think item and class balance does not affect the overly skilled players, a truely skilled player can play any class, using any range of items and win. For the average 'Pubby' I agree that balance is important because they don't understand the nuances of the game, things like if I feint and then chamber my attack most players will mindfreak and forget how to block and then die. Those things come with time and some fucking around with the different classes.

[Brutal]

- a few points in riding skill

My cav alt as 7 riding point,i could have had 3 more agi or str with it. So I'm less "efficient " than a pure infantry.
 

[Guts]

"I do NOT think 2hd is supposed to be faster than 1hd. 2hd already has got high reach and high damage, and if you can block manually the shield of the 1hd won't make this up, I think. And finally I think it's common sense you can swing small, light weapons faster than big, nasty ones."


a 2h isnt faster than 1h the 1h have the faster swing animation over the 2h plus that nasty left swing is faster than any swing i have even if i use the katana as well as the other swings but i will agree 2h have the reach and dmg if the 2h is using one of the larger swords (not including heirlooms) about the manual blocking a shield offers things manual blocking cant like protection from range we all have been shot mid melee then killed by the person we were fighting also if a 1h shield breaks there swings become faster and do more damage but yea i agree "SMALL AND LIGHT" but for example a popular sword the long espada roughly 105 length vs the longsword which is roughly  106 both around the same size ur gonna say u can swing that sword faster with one hand than if a person was swinging a longsword with 2 hands doesnt sound right to me

[Noble Crassius]

"Crossbows
Easy to use, easy to master, low skill point investment. For 100 wpf you can get crossbows up to decent accuracy and damage. Sure, their slow to reload, but if you have cover, once you’ve reloaded you have an infinite amount of time to aim your shot, which can be invaluable. Crossbows are a great secondary skill for hybrids. - true

Bottom line: Very powerful for minimal skill investment" - / big bank investment.

"Why I think it's balanced: A bit more expensive to maintain than archery, and probably less game changing due to the very slow rate of fire. Still, you can get some good hits and kills with it and it's less skill point intensive, which balances it out." - You forgot to mention what also balances it out, slow reload speed even with points invested but thats ok too imo.

"Possible fixes: Some complain about the price of crossbows. I tend to agree. Crossbows are meant to be the little cousin of archers for those who don’t want to have to mess up their builds with skill points in power draw and athletics. With their price, however, you can’t really bring in a crossbow and your good gear very economically. Perhaps this is chadz’s intention. If so, leave it be. Some complain about the damage as well. I think damage is fine, considering it retains it’s pierce damage. I think damage is balanced by the fact that headshots are easier with a crossbow than, say a bow, in my opinion." - Idk where you found this bit of info seems unfounded. Damage nerf sucked for us xbowmen but I was ok with that, the real kick in the balls was the price increase coupled with the damage nerf. No one likes to pay more for less. We do less dps than any other ranged class, thats cool we don't invest that much but I would like the price to reflect that. I say keep the damage nerf but give us the old xbow prices before this hot-fix patch.

[bruce]

Crpg doesn't have set classes. For instance, everyone can be both ranged and melee at the same time, and in fact every (sane) archer has a melee weapon. Sure, he will do somewhat worse then a dedicated melee fighter with it - but outcomes of melee are largely dependent on player skill.

So for instance, someone with a ranged weapon is also a twohander/polearmer, as is a thrower, etc. So the "shielders counter ranged" doesn't hold water, for instance. But that shielder can also be packing ranged (for instance, throwing meshes with shield use beautifully). So on and so forth. Excluding cavalry/horse ranged is a great shortcoming of your model.

I think we (as in, the mods, and ultimately, chadz) should just decide what type of combat do they want to see in CRPG the most and adjust stats/prices/etc accordingly. This was already done for archery (but reversed as they gave into whining for some reason), was done to horses (with much increased upkeep and reduction of horse speeds due to riding) since too much cavalry was showing up, etc, to crossbows (see above). If a third of the server starts packing throwing or bows or crossbows or horses, then it needs a nerf.

Of course, specific item balance is always a issue, players find the "win" weapons and they start massively poliferating, because everyone wants the advantage... but that's a different thing altogether, and fairly easily solved.