Topic: "Northmen" Tribe Page

@GunChleoc: I don´t like using textures with blender, I prefer to combine material colours. The only textures I´ll use (if I ever use some) are the ones that are included in lp:widelands-media. Those are fine, I guess?

WorldSavior wrote:

Nordfriese wrote:

I tested these values with einstein´s program:

vs.	bar_00	emp_00	atl_00	fri_00	bar_10	emp_10	atl_10	fri_10
bar_00	59.0%	43.2%	33.2%	56.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
emp_00	69.7%	54.8%	42.2%	62.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
atl_00	79.9%	70.6%	58.3%	68.9%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
fri_00	57.4%	49.1%	41.9%	54.4%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
bar_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	51.8%	50.7%	50.2%	63.9%
emp_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	56.8%	52.3%	48.2%	52.2%
atl_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	56.9%	55.8%	51.4%	59.0%
fri_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	45.5%	55.5%	49.5%	57.6%

I assumed an increase of attack for Frisians of 1000 per level, because different values for min/max attack increase are not possible (as far as I know). These values look pretty good. Frisian have a clear advantage when attacking first and are disadvantaged when defending, but the difference isn´t too unbalanced. I´ll include these stats in the next review.

Before everyone forgets this: What have you written here? The values look bad. Frisians have only advantages when attacking first other frisians or imperials. But even though they are strong against imperials, they are pathetic against barbarians and weak against atlanteans. So it is a bad balancing. I would recommend to find much better values (with lower attack perhaps) or just to implement the values which I suggested.

Excuse me?? You suggested these values! The only difference is that I used an attack increase of 1000; you wanted different increases for min and max attack (850; 1200), which is not possible.

The table clearly shows that Frisians have a moderate advantage when attacking and a moderate disadvantage when defending. They have a 45-64% chance against barbarians, 49-63% against empire, 41-69% against atlanteans, 54-58% against other frisians. What is so weak/pathetic about that? What is imbalanced, especially compared to the other tribes?

Top

Quote

king_of_nowhere wrote:

Nordfriese wrote:

The table clearly shows that Frisians have a moderate advantage when attacking and a moderate disadvantage when defending. They have a 45-64% chance against barbarians, 49-63% against empire, 41-69% against atlanteans, 54-58% against other frisians. What is so weak/pathetic about that? What is imbalanced, especially compared to the other tribes?

actually, the percentage is always for the attacker, so against barbarians they have 45% when attacking and 36% when defending, averaging 40%, which is a bit low. Against atlanteans they have 45%, which is ok, and against empire they arealmost even.

You are explaining it correctly

Lower chance against barbarians can only mean one thing: they get killed in one less hit against the higher barbarian attack. So their healt or defence must be reinforced a little bit.

Or their attack.

or they must become cheaper.

Well, I don't know if it is fair for a tribe if it has compensate quality by quantity...

Still not that bad. barbarians used to have 36% against atlanteans and it was considered ok until a couple years ago.

But then you proved that it's not really ok

Nordfriese wrote:

WorldSavior wrote:

Nordfriese wrote:

I tested these values with einstein´s program:

vs.	bar_00	emp_00	atl_00	fri_00	bar_10	emp_10	atl_10	fri_10
bar_00	59.0%	43.2%	33.2%	56.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
emp_00	69.7%	54.8%	42.2%	62.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
atl_00	79.9%	70.6%	58.3%	68.9%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
fri_00	57.4%	49.1%	41.9%	54.4%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
bar_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	51.8%	50.7%	50.2%	63.9%
emp_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	56.8%	52.3%	48.2%	52.2%
atl_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	56.9%	55.8%	51.4%	59.0%
fri_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	45.5%	55.5%	49.5%	57.6%

I assumed an increase of attack for Frisians of 1000 per level, because different values for min/max attack increase are not possible (as far as I know). These values look pretty good. Frisian have a clear advantage when attacking first and are disadvantaged when defending, but the difference isn´t too unbalanced. I´ll include these stats in the next review.

Before everyone forgets this: What have you written here? The values look bad. Frisians have only advantages when attacking first other frisians or imperials. But even though they are strong against imperials, they are pathetic against barbarians and weak against atlanteans. So it is a bad balancing. I would recommend to find much better values (with lower attack perhaps) or just to implement the values which I suggested.

Excuse me?? You suggested these values!

No, I didn't. And even if I would: That doesn't have to be the result for most mistakes in your post.

The only difference is that I used an attack increase of 1000; you wanted different increases for min and max attack (850; 1200),

Well, of course one difference can change the whole balancing.

... which is not possible.

There exists no law that this cannot be implemented.

The table clearly shows that Frisians have a moderate advantage when attacking and a moderate disadvantage when defending. They have a 45-64% chance against barbarians, 49-63% against empire, 41-69% against atlanteans, 54-58% against other frisians.

No...

Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked

Top

Quote

Nordfriese wrote:

In page 11 first post you suggested to change the values. I used this very change. The current lua files are exactly as you proposed there. I ran another test to check the values again:

Battles win:

vs.	bar_00	emp_00	atl_00	fri_00	bar_10	emp_10	atl_10	fri_10
bar_00	57.0%	41.7%	31.7%	54.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
emp_00	70.5%	56.1%	43.2%	62.2%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
atl_00	78.7%	67.9%	55.7%	71.9%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
fri_00	57.1%	48.3%	37.2%	55.2%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
bar_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	55.0%	52.1%	50.5%	64.3%
emp_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	55.3%	53.2%	49.6%	53.5%
atl_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	56.6%	56.9%	53.2%	58.8%
fri_10	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	47.2%	55.4%	50.0%	58.6%

I apologize for slightly misinterpreting the values before (I confused attacker with defender).

Frisian heroes have an advantage when defending against anyone and when attacking frisians or empire and they are very slightly disadvantaged when attacking barbarians.

Frisian rookies are less balanced. When defending, they have an advantage, but it is always smaller than for barbarians; when attacking, they are similar to barbarians with less of a disadvantage against empire and atlanteans.

All in all, the balancing is not perfect (it could never be) but it is not more unbalanced than any other tribe. The only issue is the high defensive advantage against barbarians, but it is compensated by the lower chance to win an attack against them. Therefore, I do not see the need to change anything.

And if you want to implement the possibility to have different increases in min/max attack, go ahead. But I won´t use it.

Actually, you are confusing values for attacker and defender again. The line under "fri10" has all values greater than 50%, which means the attacker has greater than 50% odds. 64% in the case of a barbarian attacker.

WorldSavior wrote:

Lower chance against barbarians can only mean one thing: they get killed in one less hit against the higher barbarian attack. So their healt or defence must be reinforced a little bit.

Or their attack.

if we increase their attack, they risk becoming too strong against the other tribes, because they would kill barbarians faster, but they'd also kill faster everyone else.

or they must become cheaper.

Well, I don't know if it is fair for a tribe if it has compensate quality by quantity...

Why not? zerg rush became a popular expression for exactly that concept. Barbarians already are this at low promotion levels. And I was thinking for amazonians (in case they're ever made) to be like that, weaker (say, 40% odds, nothing too dramatic) but cheaper - or, rather, with more chances at overproducing an opponent in the late game, especially since they would not run out of metals.

Still, frisians do not fit much with "weaker but cheaper", I agree on that.

As for increasing the randomness in attack, it cannot be done currently, and while surely someone could change the code to accomodate it, well, either someone actually does that, or we're stuck trying to balance things with the tools we have.

Top

Quote

Nordfriese wrote:

king_of_nowhere wrote:

Actually, you are confusing values for attacker and defender again. The line under "fri10" has all values greater than 50%, which means the attacker has greater than 50% odds. 64% in the case of a barbarian attacker.

Ooops… When will I finally be able to correctly read such a table?

I´ve made a summary of the stats with (hopefully!) the correctly read values.

Frisians win chance in % when…

Opponent	attacking	defending
BAR 0	57.1	45.4
EMP 0	48.3	37.8
ATL 0	37.2	31.1
FRI 0	55.2	44.8
BAR 10	47.2	35.7
EMP 10	55.4	46.5
ATL 10	50.0	41.2
FRI 10	58.6	41.4

You are confusing again... no, just kidding, this time it's right

The values for the rookies are good enough, in my opinion.

the rookies are fairly weak, but then, also barbarian ones are. If they are cheap (like barbarian ones), it's fine

if we increase their attack, they risk becoming too strong against the other tribes, because they would kill barbarians faster, but they'd also kill faster everyone else.

I also experimented with slightly higher evade, attack and defence levels, but that completely toppled the balance. Health was the only approach for a tweak that didn´t unbalance everything.

Yay! Can i be the elder of eyeballing mathematics?

Anyway, the new values seem ok. now frisians are about as strong as the atlanteans, which should probably be the top tier. Now I try and see if I can make the patch work

Top

Quote

They really use a big amount of everything. I tried them on oasis triangle lately and there the massive usage of stones was really a problem cause I was not able to build any rock mine due to missing granite mountain. I had the same suggestion in mind as King_of_nowhere reducing the rocks needed for 1 brick to 0.5.

Top

Quote