Forums

Forums of BattlesofNorghan.com

1.12 version released in October 2016!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
   

Ok, my reply...

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forums of BattlesofNorghan.com Forum Index -> Player reviews, critiques and suggestions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rick
New member


Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:11 pm    Post subject: Ok, my reply... Reply with quote

>>
There is a lot of variety in where the opposing forces start as they will start as far away as the maximum damage dealing range is + 8 (but there is a minimum distance). (The distance is a lot less than 60 usually, especially now that the best bow's range was decreased.) <<

Well, saying there is variety isn't quite the same thing as having variety.

Howabout the possibility of starting within 6 spaces of each other? Or starting in a thunderstorm (high winds make archery tough, but movement is also slowed). Or on a 'low magic' day? Or a 'low divine magic' day? Or on an 'Elven Holy Day"? Man, I could come up with 20 different arena scenarios, beyond the ONE scenario we get--starting out a half dozen or more moves away, and spending turn after turn closing, while the archers obliterate everything.


>>
As you can read from the changes, the bows were re-balanced in this version. <<

Well, it's a nice band-aid, but really doesn't address the issue. Right now, 2 good archers with minimal support can defeat 12 heavily armored (or lightly armored but fast moving) warriors easily. After the bandaid, I might need 4. It still will not be balanced.


>>
There are lots of units with enough health points to be able to take just about any melee hit with a high-end armour and the reason why the maximum armour defence is merely around 30 is that middle-class fighters could still harm them with luck. However I'll consider the cons and pros of making some better armours. <<

Rubbish. I regularly land 30 point hits with medium weapons (kills most unarmored or less than medium armored creatures, one shot)...it's a rare game that I don't land or see more than one 50 point hit. I even saw an 80 point hit. Very few creatures can take a 50 point hit with less than absolute best armor (and I don't even use top tier weapons), and almost no 'normal' creatures can take 80.

The issue isn't better armor (though it sure could be cheaper)...the weapons hit too hard. Cut all weapon damage by another 30%, maybe. Better yet, put a slider in the game and I can figure it out better.

After the first season, all the melee fights are one or two swing affairs.

>>It makes it a lot easier for the AI to understand what to buy when everything's price is based directly on its value. Still, sometimes a worse item can be better if it has better hit or block bonuses and your unit does enough damage already for example. <<

Well, I dont' know what you're using for AI, but the decisionmaking process should be chance of hit * (expected damage)....it's not hard for the computer to do something like this. If it can account for bonuses to hit, it can account for penalties. Failing that, you can always just set the tendency of the computer players to select particular weapons.

Making the high end weapons superaccurate as well as heavy damaging makes fights too quick in addition to eliminating any strategy in buying weapons. I'd like a real fight, with multiple swings.

As it is, with archery, it's "Hits for 40 damage, armor blocks 20"...then I move closer, and "hits for 40 damage, armor blocks 20, your character dies".

And, in melee (those rare games that have melee...I find one melee figure and a bunch of archers is pretty much the only strategy), it's little different.


>>Goblins are better in dodging than giants but they are also meant to be the weakest race in the game and their current dodging skill is based solely on their size as they are too dumb to try dodging too much otherwise. There are many other differences between the races which you can read about from the next version's manual.<<

Righto, could well be in the manual.

Take care,

Rick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tertsi
Mitorah Games Studio Head


Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 331
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That kind of variety isn't a snap to implement but can be considered for an expansion or for the Gold Version.

I can't agree with that 2 archers can defeat 12 heavily armoured or fast unit with minimal support unless they are uber archers. Either way now you could see mages being able to take down some archers as the ranges got closer and training and equipping so good archers cost considerably more so even if 2 good archers can take 4 good melee units down after this patch it isn't an issue. However we will further balance anything if need be as we don't have the time to test every change throughoutly before releasing the patch.

As for the damage a unit deals, it depends on the strength of the creature a lot. If you for example equip the best long sword to a knight with 6 strength you won't see him deal 50 damage without a very lucky critical hit at least, more like 30 - armour defence. I do know what you are talking about though and it could well be that we will reduce the damage of the top melee weapons for an upcoming version.

It is easy that way also, but we have already accounted those for the cost formulas of the weapons and I simply don't think it would be worth it to change both the tons of equipment and the large equipment buying AI. Do also consider that this game is a semi-hardcore game made so that some casual gamers could also enjoy it and every change like that would make the game more hardcore. However some if not all of the top weapon hitting / blocking bonuses will be reduced. When there are a big bunch of units you won't want single melee fights take too long either and it is only realistic that one hit by an ogre kills a weak creature like a human witch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rick
New member


Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 4:28 pm    Post subject: k Reply with quote

That kind of variety isn't a snap to implement but can be considered for an expansion or for the Gold Version. <<

Right.

>>
I can't agree with that 2 archers can defeat 12 heavily armoured or fast unit with minimal support unless they are uber archers. <<

It's not a question of whether you agree, it's a question of mathematics. Let's go over it carefully:

Effective bow range is 35 spaces. A typical warrior moves 5 spaces a turn (assuming he has light armor); it'll take him 7 turns to get to the archer, assuming an unimpeded path (and that's a HECK of an assumption). Oh wait, the archer gets to move one space after every shot, so he'll move 7 more speces over those 7 turns. Add in two more turns to finally get to the archer.

So, the archer will get 9 shots at him. I just had another game with multiple 50+ damage hits, and a couple of 80+ damage hits, oneshot kills for most everything. Just 7 shots have to hit, out of 9 (and decent archers have a 77% chance of hitting) and that's 7 dead warriors with any luck at all. Maybe one warrior will take two hits.

So, one archer can kill 6 advancing warriors. So, 2 archers can easily kill a dozen, with plenty of time for 'missed shots'. Factor in the more realistic impediments on the battlefield, jostling to get to the archers, and any sort of support, and a dozen kills is not a stretch at all.

Follow the math here?

>>Either way now you could see mages being able to take down some archers as the ranges got closer and training and equipping so good archers cost considerably more so even if 2 good archers can take 4 good melee units down after this patch it isn't an issue. However we will further balance anything if need be as we don't have the time to test every change throughoutly before releasing the patch. <<
<<

Yep, these band-aids will help a little. Now, one archer will only destroy 4, maybe 5 warriors, instead of 7. It's still a bit too strong, and I'll still take archers over anything else.

>>
As for the damage a unit deals, it depends on the strength of the creature a lot. If you for example equip the best long sword to a knight with 6 strength you won't see him deal 50 damage without a very lucky critical hit at least, more like 30 - armour defence. I do know what you are talking about though and it could well be that we will reduce the damage of the top melee weapons for an upcoming version. <<

Yep, and that's another problem with the game, most races serve no purpose. Even if melee were a factor in the game, there's no reason for just about any melee unit except for the high-strength ones (giants, primarily, and maybe minotaurs), which also happen to be high toughness (although even giants get one-shotted by bows, at least they have some sort of chance of soaking up 2 hits).

It'd be neat if the races had special abilities. Eg, knights could always get a counter strike (or bonus move) when shot at, minotaurs came with natural armor and a bonus to assaults, araghans have a blur effect that makes 20% of attacks miss, wizards can cast and move, etc. As it is, giants, archers, and to some extent wizards are the key to the game. Yes, I know, you consider the game finished and thus such things aren't worth programming...but the game has such a good underlying idea that if anyone does implement it WELL it'll be a hit.

Actually, I'm starting to re-think magic. Except as it supports archers, it's fairly irrelevant; most 'buff' spells wear out before the melee guys can even get close, the summons are worthless against any team with archery (and being unable to move and cast makes them sitting ducks as well), just leaving direct damage spells...which are usually inferior to archery. Admittedly, the band-aids will help a little, so I'll reconsider if I decide to play after the patch.

>>
It is easy that way also, but we have already accounted those for the cost formulas of the weapons and I simply don't think it would be worth it to change both the tons of equipment and the large equipment buying AI. Do also consider that this game is a semi-hardcore game made so that some casual gamers could also enjoy it and every change like that would make the game more hardcore. However some if not all of the top weapon hitting / blocking bonuses will be reduced. When there are a big bunch of units you won't want single melee fights take too long either and <<

I don't want fights to take long? Heh, I'm not so sure of that, I thought that was the idea of assembling a good team, was for the larger battles to be strategic. More than 90% of the battles I play are slaughters one way or the other...it's the close ones, the slow ones where I have to think about what I'm doing, that are fun, at least for me.

I don't think putting some decision-making in equipment buying makes it 'hardcore', it wouldn't add any rules to the game that aren't already there, just changing a few numbers. Anyone who can read "+5" and understand it, can follow "-5" as well.

Even if archery were fixed (right now, it's just archers mowing down troops as they slog through ridiculous lengths of terrain), melee combat would still be dubious, with one-shot high percentage smackdowns fairly common. Admittedly, that's just a conjecture, but what little medium-high level melee I've seen seems to fit that description.

Hey, another idea: total wipeout after every year.

Everyone keeps their team, but all equipment (and possibly spells) vanishes after the year. Better yet, everyone keeps only their favorite 6 players.

Surely this wouldn't be hard to program?

As someone else noted, after a few years, the top clan is simply unstoppable, because all his characters have high-level equipment...and there's no way to catch up except to play for years and years and years to eventually get the same equipment purchased after one cup win (and, of course, by this time the top clan has 26 troops all with maximum equipment).

But, with all equipment vanishing at the end of the year (and everyone starts with the same amount of gold, based on division, say, 12k plus 2k per level above Cool, perhaps then strategy will be a factor, since facing a squad of 3 top tier archers won't happen until late in the season.

>>it is only realistic that one hit by an ogre kills a weak creature like a human witch.<<
<<

Realism isn't an issue; I agree in reality archers would dominate in the one kind of combat fought here or that a 800 pound humanoid would crush a old woman trivially. I'm talking about making a fun game. It would be more FUN if a knight or barbarian had some way to survive those hits, or at least reduce the damage to 'glancing blow' or something, anything, to make things more than just straight onehitdead fights.

Again, just some ideas to make the game better.

Take care,

Rick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tertsi
Mitorah Games Studio Head


Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 331
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I would suggest we should continue the talk about archers after the 1.01 version.

It's true that the close battles are of course more fun to most players, however a close 26 vs. 26 battle takes a lot of time and a lot more if the melee fighting takes longer. Initially the melee hitting chances were lower all around, but it wasn't fun to just miss like 6 times before a successful hit when trying to hit a unit which's blocking skills equal your hitting skills, neither is it that fun to have a fist fight between two unequipped weak units when it takes more than 10 hits before either dies. I'll have to think about this more though once I have the time as it could be improved. Also keep in mind that you'll be able to add whatever amounts of health etc. to the units by modding the Gold version easily.

The wipeout: First you create a tough clan and then you have to start all over again? That is not fun. Sorry but it's a bad idea as the main addiction in this game comes from character development.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
aran
New member


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 5
Location: New Jersey, USA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two quick notes relevant to this thread:

a.) As i've been playing more, i've been finding equipment to be very flat in this game. You just go straight up a tree of weapons. Higher damage is better. Higher accuracy is better. There are rarely ever decisions to be made in regards to what weapons you buy. It's almost as if buying weaponry replaces a system of "levelling up" your characters. You need good weapons to win, and that's it. You don't need to employ tactics in determining who gets what weapons, because all melee weapons are elementarily the same. You just have to buy higher damage/accuracy stuff as soon as it becomes availible.

b.) Perhaps a good starting distance would be about 15 spaces. That way, fighters get within range at two moves, and archers usually will only get two shots off before the melee characters start duking it out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Rick
New member


Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

>>
The wipeout: First you create a tough clan and then you have to start all over again? That is not fun. Sorry but it's a bad idea as the main addiction in this game comes from character development.<<

Bit of a contradiction here. You're saying the wipeout ruins character development?

There is no character development; it's all in the equipment. You develop a 26 member clan for 4 seaons, but with no equipment, and I'll 'develop' a 26 member clan of all freshly rolled up characters but spending the money I'd get after 4 mediocre seaons on equipment. It's pretty clear who will win, even if you pick all wizards.

In fact, the wipeout makes character development MORE important, since dependence upon equipment is fairly dangerous. You don't notice how the fights with the newly rolled clans are the most interesting? How each piece of equipment is critical, and you really think about spending your money? Wouldn't it be an improvement to have that happen every new season, instead of for the first hour of play and then gone forever?

My goodness, wipeout is pretty much how it is in some professional sports, like auto racing--you have real limits on how much you can invest in equipment, and it's the driver and his team that makes the difference. Imagine how dull football would be if the Superbowl winners got to play with 4 extra guys in all their games for the rest of the franchise's life...I bet that franchise would pretty much dominate (and they'd 4 MORE guys next year, then 4 more, etc...ridiculous, right? Well that's the scenario Norghan has now).

And, just think the wipeout through instead of trashing it right off...suddenly, you have to pay attention to the equipment you buy. Suddenly, you don't have interest in just hiring a pile of guys, knowing that once equipped, each is a god, forever. Suddenly, one clan no longer is guaranteed to dominate forever after winning the gold cup. Suddenly, it no longer is easy to just equip a few (or a bit more than a few after the patch) archers with top weapons and dominate forever. Suddenly, you have to decide whether to pile all your precious equipment on one warrior for a season, to make him a star, or to outfit a team of medium level guys and use teamwork to win.

In short, the wipeout makes character development MORE important. I'd like to have some reason to try different things with my team.


Incidentally, Cup and star player winners would get bonus gold for the next season (10%, maybe less, of what they get now).


The wipeout addresses so many problems so quickly it's funny. I don't think there's one weakness in the game someone's brought up that the wipeout wouldn't address. Fix? No, there are some 'uber' paradigms that could only be fixed with serious programming changes to the game and combat model...but addressed, at least.

Put a 'wipeout' option, where everyone loses all equipment at the end of every year, and see for yourself. I bet it'd add more to the game than whatever is lost by taking out the 'once on top, always and forever on top' situation.

Just try it.

Take care,

Rick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tertsi
Mitorah Games Studio Head


Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 331
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alright, there could be something to it so I'll create a poll about adding this as an option to the Gold Version once we start creating those Gold Version polls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forums of BattlesofNorghan.com Forum Index -> Player reviews, critiques and suggestions All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group