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

[Teeth]

There are some problems with your analysis.

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.

What spam problem? I tried outspamming a 1h+shielder with my char with agi 19, wpf 149 and a tempered katana and i couldnt outspam him.

[Nindur]

Then your not fighting in an efficient way, alternativly, get an axe.

[Seawied]

Then your not fighting in an efficient way, alternativly, get an axe.

his point is that one of the fastest weapons available couldn't out-spam his opponent in the current patch. If you are able to out-spam your opponent, then it is your opponent, not yourself, who is fighting in an inefficient manner.

[Noble Crassius]

Spam is fine in this patch with the soft wpf cap no one can get really super fast anymore. People who complain about spam either 1. are new 2. failed with a build or 3. were just out fought.

Or 4. chose a high str build which ofc will be slow but usually these people know what they are getting into.

[zagibu]

Or 5. notice that spammers get to the top of the scoreboards while doing nothing (besides cooking spiced ham). If you don't see the problem with that, fine.

If people come to you with a problem that doesn't affect you, do you just tell them to piss off? Or maybe you could still help them to fix the problem, unless of course, their problem is actually to your benefit. Then you'd ridicule them, delay them, oppose them in every way you could.

Fixing spam is only against the spammer's interest. If you have no problems with spam at the moment, like me, the fix won't affect you. But it will make the game better for other players and worse for the easymode leftclick buttonmashers. They can go play Tekken or something, we don't need them in M&B.

[Seawied]

Or 5. notice that spammers get to the top of the scoreboards while doing nothing (besides cooking spiced ham). If you don't see the problem with that, fine.

ya, I don't see this happening. If you get killed by a spammer, the problem is with your skill, not with spam. As people have already said before, out-spamming to the point of no counter is impossible in the current patch.

Heirlooms and WPF were nerfed, so you cannot reach this point anymore.

[EponiCo]

Eh, what you forget, in battle mode (with many players) most of the kills are backstabs/gangs.
Of course if a pure spammer runs into someone who blocks, he's pretty much dead. But the way it usually works someone sees a distracted enemy, jumps and spams him before he even knows where from, and goes directly to the next distracted enemy (or possibly the enemy that miscalculated his chance to backstab him). So with enough awareness and a long fast weapon just relying on spam works fairly well. Especially since it's usually a huge chaos and most people get tunnelvision.

edit: But well, this has been this way since the first 100 man native servers. Problem is imo the failed speed simulation ... you are always sprinting and can change directions superfast, which also makes formations near impossible.

[Stokes]

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.

Yes, anyone can carry a shield, this is true. However I've been playing as an Archer for the past week pretty consistently and I've noticed that many two-handers don't carry their shield out often and are usually easy targets. Many two handers only take their shield out if they are being actively targeted by archers. If an archer fires at at an enemy two hander as he is about to engage in melee, the two hander must choose to either retreat or enter into melee, exposing himself to arrows. When a two hander draws a shield he has literally lost all offensive capability, (unless he has invested other skillpoints, obviously).

It comes down to this: 1h with shield is always effective in combat. Two hander with a shield out is useless on the battlefield. As long as he keeps that shield up, he might as well not exist on the battlefield.

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.


Yes, you bring up a good point. I wanted to talk about the effect of hybridization, but I didn't, simply to cut down on post size. I'll comment on it briefly here.

Basically by hybridizing and taking up two weapon proficiency skills, you can instantaneously move yourself around the SOFT "rock paper scissors" system, gaining an advantage in certain situations. Remember, I say SOFT, because player skill is almost always more important than just weapon choice or any artificial ideas about "rock paper scissors".  This game/mod is not an RPG. it is an FPS-RPG: Big difference.  My original post is taking a very focused look at three types of weapons and how they interact in ways where one type is slightly more effective versus another type.

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.

Good points on 3 and 4, I agree, and I didn't think about these weapon roles in Siege. I might have to quote you in the OP   

"Crossbows
" 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.

Like I said, I agree that Crossbows might be too expensive in their current state. I stated that headshots are easier with a Crossbow, (in my opinion, remember), because I tend to get more head shots when I don't have to worry about getting my shot off quickly because of fatigue, as with bows.

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.

Ahh, yes. See on this point I disagree - to a point. (WARNING: Realism argument coming, avert your eyes if you're squeamish!) Given the same size and weight for a weapon, the guy using two hands is going to swing MUCH faster than the guy using one hand who also is carrying a sack of potatoes in his other hand(a shield).

So, now on to balance for the game... I think some two handed weapons, like the small katana, or any of the two-handed swords of similar size to one handed swords, should in fact be faster, since they do not gain much advantage over their other one handed counterparts. If the weapon is much longer than the one-handed weapons, then yes, it should be a bit slower, especially weapons like the Great Swords and the Flamberge. In my experience this is how it is already balanced, but I could be wrong, like I said, I don't use one handed in cRPG very much.


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.

This is exactly why I didn't tackle some of the other "classes". I wanted to keep this is simple as possible, and once you add in all the other classes it can get more complicated.

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.

Right, like I said, I am more concerned with the balance between what I see to be the three main infantry archetypes. I want to discredit the whiners who claim that this is not true by thoughtfully proving that, generally speaking, these three archetypes are balanced. Once we can establish that, we can focus our efforts on balancing the "fringe" classes and we can fit items into our existing ideas about class balance.

Discussing the relationship between, say, Cavalry, Pikemen, and Archers, would take a whole new thread I think... haha.


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.

I didn't plan on talking about cavalry here, but I have to say that on this point I severely disagree with you on the need to nerf cavalry into the ground AND increase upkeep. I am going to use my experience of M&B Warband Native multiplayer.

In Native multiplayer, Cavalry is powerful, but very situational. Cavalry always depends on the map and the terrain. I have seen matches in Native, where - organized through chat - literally the entire team went cavalry for a round on a map like Field by the River or Ruins. Usually, the sheer surprise and power of a huge cavalry charge meant an easy victory for that round.... BUT, the very next round, the other team went pikes and archers and hid inside ruins or on top of hills or near fences... giving horsemen a much harder time. Eventually everyone went back to infantry, because massed Cavalry wasn't cutting it anymore.

Also, cavalry in cRPG is already worse than their native counterparts, right? I mean it just got nerfed. The recent nerf further supports my arguement that cavalry are fine, citing Native as an example of my reasons why.

The one part where I fully agree with you, is when talking about the chargers and warhorses with massive armor.  These things just DO, NOT, DIE. It is getting very close to the equivalent of the "Nuke" weapon you mentioned in your post down below. It sometimes takes an entire team to bring one down. Sure, they're expensive, but thats not an adequate balancing tool. It would be just as stupid to add a "I win the round and everyone else dies" item for 1.000.000.000 gold. It's just stupid.

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.

Yep, I think Warband does that mostly well.

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!

Good point, I definitely agree. It's why I have a problem with plated chargers.

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.

Well, in Native they definitely are... in cRPG it just seems they are extremely annoying. I'm working on a hybrid foot/mounted archer at the moment, and I can already forsee that I'm going to get many more kills on foot than mounted with my bow. HA is much more damaging psychologically, I think (Which is still very important! Psychological warfare helps win battles!).

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

Yep, already agreed. Still, equipment should change the scales at least a little bit. Which it does.

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.

Yes, very important, and many forget this aspect of balance. It needs to be balanced for the average joe, but it also needs to be made so that a high skill player can't abuse it. I've seen games where this rule is forgotten and then either all the "pros" use one single unbeatable strategy or whatever or it goes the other way, and all the average players are using a single strategy that only the pros can beat.

[Joker86]

Just one single point I have to add, to make us finally agree at all points (as you are definitely right about 2handed Katanas, for example, or the HAs who are "annoying" in the best case):

I said you need to nerf cavalry, and you have two options: upkeep and stats.

I wrote "but all those advantages need a really high upkeep for balance!", which is my bad, as it should have been "but all those advantages would need a really high upkeep for balance!".

Actually chadz followed this "path", and I think this is wrong, as it eliminated most cavalry from the battlefields, but the remaining ones still had a broken effort/effect-ratio (in my eyes). So it's a rather bad solution, concerning cavalry players. All the other players should be quite happy, though.

In short: I am AGAINST an upkeep nerf, but FOR a stats nerf.

Oh, and btw. I think even light cavalry is still more effective in cRPG than in Native. Not to mention heavy cav. 

[Noble Crassius]

"I stated that headshots are easier with a Crossbow, (in my opinion, remember), because I tend to get more head shots when I don't have to worry about getting my shot off quickly because of fatigue, as with bows."

Ok I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Follow this trail of logic with me: we get one shot off in the time an archer can get 3-4(probably more) + archers get better accuracy so - who has the higher % chance of getting a headshot? We don't have to worry about fatigue but always on the edge of a xbowmens mind is if we miss (always a good chance of this as an xbowmen) that we probably won't be able to get to get another shot off.
 
Perhaps opinions, especially ones that are not supported by any facts at all, don't belong in a serious game balance discussion? 

+ an interesting post I stumbled upon

Gorath
Re: Archer build
« Reply #1 on: Today at 03:41:35 am »

    * Quote

Well, I'm partial to my build on Moneyshot, but every archer is different:

Level: 30

Str: 15
Agi: 21

PS: 5
PD: 5
ATH: 7
WM: 7

Bow: 140
2her: 100

*Khergit Bow, Longsword, 2x Bodkins, Tribal Warrior, Straw Hat, Leather gloves, Leather boots*

My reticule is nice and tight, and I can 2-shot most everyone in mail or less, heavier armors obviously require more depending on the armor.  Headshots are lethal period and relatively easy to aim for (as much as a headshot can be expected to be easy).  Only 100 in 2her, but with the longsword and agi I'm fast enough and hit hard enough to melee fairly well.  All in all I'm pretty happy with it."

[Stokes]

"I stated that headshots are easier with a Crossbow, (in my opinion, remember), because I tend to get more head shots when I don't have to worry about getting my shot off quickly because of fatigue, as with bows."

Ok I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Follow this trail of logic with me: we get one shot off in the time an archer can get 3-4(probably more) + archers get better accuracy so - who has the higher % chance of getting a headshot? We don't have to worry about fatigue but always on the edge of a xbowmens mind is if we miss (always a good chance of this as an xbowmen) that we probably won't be able to get to get another shot off.
 

You do bring up a good point, the higher rate of fire does technically give a better chance of a headshot. I guess technically speaking, I have a much greater chance of getting a headshot with a machine gun than with an rifle, simply due to the rate of fire.

As far as accuracy, I'm not sold on the fact that archers are always more accurate than crossbows. I would agree that generally they are more accurate, but this is due to a higher skillpoint investment. Most archers have dedicated entire builds around archery with lots of WPF, whereas Crossbows are generally a secondary skill choice. Still, being able to aim indefinitely can't hurt the accuracy of crossbow users. Like you said though, many good archer builds do have better accuracy and rate of fire than crossbows, which I think is how it should be, considering they have invested much more of their character toward that weapon.

Besides that, it seems we agree on most everything else about crossbows, right? We both agree they are too pricey, but you said you were okay with the damage nerf, if price was reduced as well, which I agree with. We agree that they are good weapon for hybrids.  The only disagreement seems to be with my belief that headshots are easier with crossbows which I think is more a matter of preference rather than empiricism in any case.

Perhaps opinions, especially ones that are not supported by any facts at all, don't belong in a serious game balance discussion? 

but thats ok too imo.

You do it, too, let's keep the discussion civil, yes? I tried to convey, by saying "in my opinion", that my preference for headshots using crossbows was due more to preference and my experiences than any claim of my having infallible objective knowledge of such things. 

[Elmetiacos]

I don't really agree that two handers will beat sword and shield; not anymore. It used to be the case, pre-patch, with lower wpf cost and no soft level cap. Whether this is because the mechanics of combat mean there really is more of a "law of diminishing returns" with 1h+shield or because most of the best players were 2h I don't know. Pre-patch I usually could beat most shield users with my 195wpf - if I got impatient I could even take out a lolhammer. In my opinion, the 2h is the weapon to use if you are already superior in stats to your opponent(s). When this is the case, your superiority is accentuated. However, if your opponent is at least equal, the shield has the advantage: the 2h fighter's defence depends on both positioning and directional block being correct whereas that of the shield user depends only on positioning. The greater damage dealt by 2h weapons isn't enough to offset this - and taking out a lolhammer now only invites being spammed to death yourself by any reasonably competent opponent.

As Stokes has said, a 2h user who goes with a shield to face missiles takes himself out of the fight, but I'd add that he's also in danger: if you are a 2h fighter and are forced into combat while using a shield you are going to be hit and possibly killed unless someone arrives to rescue you. You will only have 1 or 2 points in shield, so your shield will soon be destroyed, you'll be stunlocked and hit - and if you try and switch weapons your opponent gets a free swing and you will be hit anyway. The shield user is also better equipped to take on multiple opponents. It used to be possible, but difficult, to do this as a 2 hander, but it's nearly impossible now for all but the very best - there are more shield users who wait for the right moment to strike and there are more good spear or pike users, making it impossible to defend yourself with a lateral block chambered. I see this reflected in the kills tables: the people are the top are still cavalry, but the next tier I've noticed are sword and shield fighters, not the old two hander wielding tin cans.

[Chagan_Arslan]

- horses cause bump damage and weaken or even kill your enemies by simply pressing [W]

and you kill others by simply pressing left mouse button

[Joker86]

Only for archers. And even they have to aim.

Or do you really want to reduce meele to "clicking with mouse button"? 

[Polobow]

Great discussion! Most of the arguments are very thought out, and add to balancing. I like this, keep discussing !