Server Side Balance Modifications for Next Tournament (NC?)

[Rend]

Yes, I agree about the hp bars. They are designed in a way that you can't see the ends of them anyway in the client, so they do already give a bit of a skewed perception of how much health you have. Adding some ironflesh is the tweak I think would be least likely to cause any major glitches.
When it comes to powerstrike, it depends if that stat affects how fast you swing. Weapon skill does affect swing speed right? And power strike only adds some umph to it? If that's the case then power strike should be fine to tweak. I haven't seen the actual source code for this though so I'm not sure, but this should be quite easy to test.

As far as testing goes, my concern is that tweaking a stat a point or two might not cause any obvious bugs that you notice right away, but could increase the frequency of weird stuff like instant swings, small animation stutters, ghost range, horse lag etc. It would take some careful testing to make sure this isn't the case as even a small increase in these kind of glitches would have a negative impact on the gameplay experience in the long run.

 

[MaHuD]

My zombie mod on NW is server side, and I have not noticed any gameplay problems with increasing powerstrike or athletics by a small amount. HP does get displayed incorrectly, but it sort of fixes itself as you lose HP from getting hit. I have not changed accuracy, agility and similar stats, so I can't speak for those.

 

[Lord Rich]

As far as testing goes, my concern is that tweaking a stat a point or two might not cause any obvious bugs that you notice right away, but could increase the frequency of weird stuff like instant swings, small animation stutters, ghost range, horse lag etc. It would take some careful testing to make sure this isn't the case as even a small increase in these kind of glitches would have a negative impact on the gameplay experience in the long run.

It's going to be incredibly difficult to identify minor statistical changes in glitches given that warband is not the most glitch free to begin with. I think if we play test it and don't notice any obvious effects it's reasonable to proceed.

 

[Rend]

One way to test this could be to crank the values up way higher than you would for balance purposes and see if it causes bugs. If it does it would be resonable to assume that more subtle bugs will be caused from changing the stats a lesser amount.
In that case I would argue against touching stats that can cause glitches for a competitive mod. I have noticed weird stuff like this when trying for example 28 Days mod. While this might not be as much of an issue in a casual full invasion mod, I think those kind of glitches would be more frustrating in a competitive setting.

I like the initiative to try and balance the factions better, but I would call for caution to make sure we don't create bigger issues than the ones we are trying to fix.

 

[Magnus_XIV]

That actually sounds like a pretty good idea!

 

[captain lust]

I appreciate the statistics offered by BRO but as hippo himself said, it's only a start and very limited.

Even if there was anything approaching some valid statistical evidence for this, I cannot speak more strongly against making a pro mod. The risks involved are completely unknown and while I have consistently been in favour of change in the competitive scene throughout the past years, the potential for this to cause damage that could lead to a great diminishing in the size and health of the scene is massive.

This is a potential barrier to:
-anyone new joining the scene
-by extension, anyone new wanting to set up a team
-anyone wanting to run a tournament
-anyone interested in the scene
-any professional organisation interested in investing in the scene

There are several important questions here that are also being completely ignored, or not sufficiently considered.
-What is the game we want to play?
-Who has the right to decide what the game is that we play?
-How many people need to agree for this change to be valid?
-What is the end goal?
-What are the expected short and long term effects on the scene as a whole?
-Has this been attempted in other communities and what were the benefits/issues encountered?
-What are the potential other solutions to the perceived problems?

Doing this as a response to what has happened in a single recent match, on a map which has also been drawn into question, is an absolute recipe for disaster.

I would honestly consider removing Rhodoks from the competitive scene as a better alternative, based on the current evidence and way this is being approached. Making the mod and getting teams to play it, before the above is covered, just seems like a complete waste of time to me.

 

[Tallie]

How about the NC admins put this in the servers, and they wont tell anyone.. No one would notice the difference tbh

 

[Shemaforash]

I would honestly consider removing Rhodoks from the competitive scene as a better alternative, based on the current evidence and way this is being approached. Making the mod and getting teams to play it, before the above is covered, just seems like a complete waste of time to me.

If I've understood correct, you do not need a mod since it's server-side.

Sounds like sound and solid adjustments AZAN, would do well for warband.

 

[Pumpkin Lord]

Let a few clans do some training matches with these changes set, or NC teams. It is the best way to examine these changes. Because, apart from attempting to buff already balanced classes, these sound really good.

Also, unless you alter the any agile-affecting skill to say over 5 or 6, it is really hard for the animations to get glitched. That happens when you either manually change the attack speed of the weapons or really stupidly change the FPS of animations in .brf file. Of course, why 5 or 6?  Because the ping factor of every player. Below is ok. (Still needs testing.)

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

Doing this as a response to what has happened in a single recent match, on a map which has also been drawn into question, is an absolute recipe for disaster.

Not really going to address the rest, although I think you're overstating the barrier (imo the barrier exists already in how different competitive is, also many servers run different versions of the game - for a time I know wolfpack servers, some of the most popular non-IG servers, ran different player stats like old archery athletics, and ZHG has non-native equipment). I would say however that it's not all down to a single match, although I guess it was really noticeable and is maybe the catalyst.

For ages now teams have been reacting to Rhodok weakness, tactically, in matches. We're more aggressive versus them on open maps, when we lose as them we say "well they're the weaker faction", when they win a round we say "don't worry they can't upgrade", as them we take less cav on closed maps, we try and supplement their crapness with extra crossbows or hammers in closed areas, to varying degrees of success, but no avoiding the overall sh!tness of Rhodok.

 

[Lord Rich]

I made the modifications last night and some of the AE players tested them, will see about getting them up on a server for more general testing tonight.

Most of the changes are relatively minor and barely noticeable unless you pay attention, I tried artificially boosting some skills such as crossbow weapon skill to 300 and athletics to 10. The crossbow skill had some artifacts as you would expect with the animation ending too early, the athletics worked surprisingly well without glitching. Those stats obviously aren't going to be included though. The only other 'glitch' was the ironflesh adjustment which as expected pushed the HP bar a little further out of the UI.

Current Changes Implemented:

Swadians
Swadian Inf Power Strike 4 -> 3

Nords
Nord Cav Shield Skill 1 -> 2

Vaegirs
Vaegir Inf Shield Skill 2 -> 4
Vaegir Archer Power Strike 0 -> 1

Sarranids
Sarranid Cav Power Strike 2 -> 3
Sarranid Cav Athletics 0 -> 3
Sarranid Inf Shield Skill 2 -> 4
Sarranid Inf Power Strike 4 -> 5
Sarranid Archer Athletics 3 -> 5
Sarranid Archer Power Strike 0 -> 2

Rhodoks
Rhodok Cav Riding Skill 4 -> 5
Rhodok Inf Shield Skill 5 -> 6
Rhodok Inf Ironflesh 4 -> 6
Rhodok Xbow Power Strike 2 -> 3

Apart from the ironflesh popping over the HP bar a little, there shouldn't be anything that causes any real problems there. Rhodoks may need more boosting, but increasing riding skill is quite significant, so not sure how strong that will be without match testing.

Here is the Troops.txt file if anyone else wants to try running it:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/yd572751rlhek0t/troops.txt

-------------------

@Lust, I understand your concerns but honestly given seasoned veterans of the game can hardly be aware of the changes I somehow doubt new players will have a clue, especially given that some servers already run with different stats. To answer your questions:

What is the game we want to play?
Warband, it's a vague question so not really something anyone could answer.

Who has the right to decide what the game is that we play?
The competitive community, namely those hosting the tournaments, however in order to have participants they need general acceptance from the community.

How many people need to agree for this change to be valid?
No one, the change is valid irrelevant of how many agree, the success of it will be measured by its further inclusion in tournaments. Plenty of changes, ideas, maps etc... have been abandoned before now and people will complain if there are issues. In this case people have been complaining for years but the group with the singular power to make lasting changes (namely taleworlds) have done nothing.

What is the end goal?
To reduce the number of scenarios which have grossly unbalanced faction bias. This is to improve competitiveness since a map where one faction wins 6 rounds leads to the other map being weighted too heavily to identify the winning team. Additionally to remove some outstanding issues and points of frustration for all classes.

What are the expected short and long term effects on the scene as a whole?
Potential new meta development built around the changes, fewer one sided matches. Honestly I can't see any of these changes damaging the scene, they're mostly small quality of life issues that players will barely notice.

Has this been attempted in other communities and what were the benefits/issues encountered?
I know of pro mods in other communities, but have not personally experienced them so I can't really comment.

What are the potential other solutions to the perceived problems?
Have taleworlds implement the patch or equivalent, blacklist matchups between certain factions on certain maps, remove factions from the game (all of which would be to me much less popular choices). Or do nothing and continue as we have, no one is forcing this to happen, we're trying it and I am sure we're capable of making reasoned decisions about what is better.

Doing this as a response to what has happened in a single recent match, on a map which has also been drawn into question, is an absolute recipe for disaster.
No, it's perfectly reasonable to address an ongoing issue after a particularly harsh case study. That tends to be the way the world works. No one is giving rhodoks 10 riding skill and free great lances or anything in response to this. Many of these changes have been issues for varying classes for a while.

Give it a chance, if it sucks we can abandon it, if it doesn't and removes points of frustration within the game, why not. I think you are blowing things out of proportion, if anything the flag changes were much more severe as they heavily affected the meta game, yet I think they have been an improvement and we have less raging at "4 flags in a row!!!" now.


I have some questions of my own though, since you were primarily responsible for the previous patch, would you be able to explain the following:

[list type=decimal]
[*]What was the reasoning behind giving swadian cav 0 throwing skill while furnishing them with throwing weapons AND power throw.
[*]What is the effect on gameplay of giving sarranid and vaegir cav 0 athletics, how does this contribute to better play and a more enjoyable game experience?
[*]What are the effects on player actions when rangers are given no ability to fight armoured opponents in melee, does this lead to more running and kiting? Is that desirable?
[*]Why do some infantry have less shield skill than others, how does shield skill effect the infantry's role in the game?
[/list]

 

[Kragen]

Good Job, will definitly test it and I hope it will make those 3-0 0-3 results less common.

But why did you buff the Sarranids more than the Rhodoks ?

 

[Shemaforash]

Sarranids are crap as well and the only redeeming quality are their cavalry, which isn't even the best in the game. But unlike rhodoks they don't collapse on open maps instead they have a setback on closed maps.

 

[Lord Rich]

Good Job, will definitly test it and I hope it will make those 3-0 0-3 results less common.

But why did you buff the Sarranids more than the Rhodoks ?

I may have to buff rhodoks more, but the riding skill buff is pretty huge, so I don't want to overdo it. They'll still have a disadvantage against other factions as cav since they have light lances by default, but if they match equipment rhodok cav should be the equals of any others now, they also have some pretty nice 1H's.

On sarranids, while there are no cases where they are doomed like the rhodoks are, there are a lot more unfavourable matchups for them on both map types. Most other factions don't tend to have as many where they are the underdog faction. I can't think of a single scenario except vs rhodoks on open that sarranids are the stronger faction either. Even closed versus vaegirs their axes don't tend to be as useful as the vaegirs having better rangers and cav.

Aside from their infantry, they also lack strong weapons to take down armoured opponents, the only 2 they have are infantry with axes and cav, the cav only have 2 power strike and cannot afford high damage 1H's or better polearms. Sarranid cav can do very well under the right conditions when they are not being shot, but they die so quickly and are so useless when dismounted that often that cannot happen. Infantry can do ok, but are hindered by low damage polearms and mediocre shields and shield skill.

 

[Hippotitis]

I'm interested to see if sarranid archers will be played differently with a higher athletic skill. Will they try to flank more easily to get more shots in?or will it just make them run away more, which would be annoying

 

[Lord Rich]

I think the lack of melee ability had more to do with archers running than the athletics, top speed isn't affected much by athletics, it's your acceleration which gets hit hardest, that relates more to combat footwork than running away. That combined with no power strike means that archers are double damned, so why fight in a melee when you have that big a disadvantage, easier just to run away sooner.

 

[captain lust]

@Lust, I understand your concerns but honestly given seasoned veterans of the game can hardly be aware of the changes I somehow doubt new players will have a clue, especially given that some servers already run with different stats. To answer your questions:

Any new players to competitive tournaments will have to be informed of these changes.

Who has the right to decide what the game is that we play?
The competitive community, namely those hosting the tournaments, however in order to have participants they need general acceptance from the community.

I agree. And what happens when these are introduced to the next WNL and a team applies then says: "we don't agree with X balance change". Are they then promptly told to like it or lump it?

Has this been attempted in other communities and what were the benefits/issues encountered?
I know of pro mods in other communities, but have not personally experienced them so I can't really comment.

Well I think it's important that someone gives it some attention, if this is going to be seriously considered.

What are the potential other solutions to the perceived problems?
Have taleworlds implement the patch or equivalent, blacklist matchups between certain factions on certain maps, remove factions from the game (all of which would be to me much less popular choices). Or do nothing and continue as we have, no one is forcing this to happen, we're trying it and I am sure we're capable of making reasoned decisions about what is better.

"to me less popular choices" is a nonsensical phrase. You're implying the popularity of something (objective) is somehow specific to you. I think all of these options could be considered, including another option, which is to use map design to resolve these issues. Map design hasn't been used systematically to address balance issues in the past at all and is a method that provides no barrier to entry higher than the one currently present.

Give it a chance, if it sucks we can abandon it, if it doesn't and removes points of frustration within the game, why not. I think you are blowing things out of proportion, if anything the flag changes were much more severe as they heavily affected the meta game, yet I think they have been an improvement and we have less raging at "4 flags in a row!!!" now.

The reason I am against giving it a chance is because I don't believe the negative effects would be related to the changes themselves. They have the potential to be long term, damaging and difficult to recover from. I have already explained why the flags are different. Prospective players that may be attracted to the competitive scene have probably never even considered the flag before. It doesn't arise much in public play and when it does, it is rarely the deciding factor. Not only this, but it affects round wins only and I don't believe public players are particularly concerned with anything beyond their own kills and deaths. Players who even understand the presence and need for the flag, probably don't know anything about the depth of its mechanics either. So for them, having a flag that for instance doesn't spawn twice in a row in the same place, it doesn't really make much of a difference. If, however, you tell a player entering the scene that when they play competitively, they are to expect different behaviour from the troop types in the game and have to explain several of these details, the game suddenly seems more daunting than some of the alternatives (like CS:GO or any other game where players aren't expected to put up with this).

This is a reality that I have to consider, as someone actually invested in the health of the community. I don't have the luxury of being able to focus on a specific issue, without considering the long-term, broader consequences. As someone wholly committed to this game, I also have a lot more at stake than you do as players. This, as well as my years of experience dev-side, is why my opinion on the matter is of importance.

It's easy for you, or someone else, to say "I don't think there will be many issues" but if you're going to convince me of that fact, then I expect some actual evidence because my opinion is very much to the contrary.

I have some questions of my own though, since you were primarily responsible for the previous patch, would you be able to explain the following:

[list type=decimal]
[*]What was the reasoning behind giving swadian cav 0 throwing skill while furnishing them with throwing weapons AND power throw.
[*]What is the effect on gameplay of giving sarranid and vaegir cav 0 athletics, how does this contribute to better play and a more enjoyable game experience?
[*]What are the effects on player actions when rangers are given no ability to fight armoured opponents in melee, does this lead to more running and kiting? Is that desirable?
[*]Why do some infantry have less shield skill than others, how does shield skill effect the infantry's role in the game?
[/list]

Whether these concerns are legitimate or not, the timing and context lead me to be believe this is just a combative attempt to:-
-Derail my argument by raising a side issue
and/or
-Question my legitimacy/authority when it comes to the matter

Which is fair enough, in a way but I'm not going to respond directly to those points because I don't think they're relevant. I haven't questioned or challenged the changes you have proposed at all, so far. In fact I don't think they're even worth discussion before a whole host of other issues are resolved. I have raised the ones that immediately come to mind but no doubt, there are many more.

My response to this is simply to ask you to remember what my role is and what my motivations are. My primary reason for taking a position against these changes is that I legitimately believe there is a strong chance it could put the health of the community in jeopardy. I am not launching an attack on you, I am making the point that the wider effects of these changes need to be considered and (for example) if it happens that this reduced the number of new blood entering the community by even 30% (I think it could be more), then it probably wouldn't be worth the improvement to balance.

Doing this as a response to what has happened in a single recent match, on a map which has also been drawn into question, is an absolute recipe for disaster.

Not really going to address the rest, although I think you're overstating the barrier (imo the barrier exists already in how different competitive is, also many servers run different versions of the game - for a time I know wolfpack servers, some of the most popular non-IG servers, ran different player stats like old archery athletics, and ZHG has non-native equipment). I would say however that it's not all down to a single match, although I guess it was really noticeable and is maybe the catalyst.

A barrier existing is not a mandate to raise it higher. Especially not by an amount which we cannot quantify and have no evidence to base any assumptions on.

 

[theDonut]

Something i've found frustrating is when if you're archer or cav forced to melee against tier1 or even 2-armored  opponents, your hit will bounce doing low as **** damage half the time, it makes skill not matter. Even infantry have a hard time somtimes.

 

[MaHuD]

I don't think that the idea of custom settings/set ups for competitive play is foreign, odd or unhealthy. Other less known/successful games also have this or even require custom installation in the form of anti cheat detection. Which by the way, is a feature that was promised for Warband to be ready on release. But having VAC protection without VAC  dedicated server files, doesn't really count in my opinion.

 

[Shemaforash]

u found some good kush in turkey Lust? share with the rest of us lmao