C2C Balance Thread
- Thread starter ls612
- Start date
What are pursuit values?
V28: It seems to cap at 95% on normal units, but if a great general (great leader?) is with the group, he can add another 50% withdrawal.
If using dynamic experience, 1 point is still much higher than winning with 95% chance.
What happens to the great leader points?
Would it be bad for your plans if I made it multiplicative? I think that that would be better for balance and a cap of 95% is still rather ridiculous. This way it would be more organic of a cap, based on diminishing returns? Note that this would have little effect in most situations, 2 +15% benefits would give 27.75% Withdrawal instead of 30%.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Ok, well I agree but I didn't adjust it for Dynamic Experience (mostly cuz I don't like the option and thus didn't spend more time trying to adapt for it.) Perhaps eventually I will give an alternative award if playing under Dynamic Experience... then again 1 is still better than 3 which it was even if you were playing Dynamic Experience!
Even with the Commander the value shouldn't be able to exceed 95% and if it is saying it does then it could just be that the display isn't correct. Something to look into further at some point.
It wouldn't be bad at all if Pursuit isn't being used. Since I planned Pursuit to be optional according to all recent discussions regarding the combat mod, then it makes sense that if the same condition is met that Pursuit isn't in play, then manipulating it as you suggest may not be a bad idea. With Pursuit, it should be perfectly acceptable to have totals exceeding 100% chance on withdrawal to promote the strategic use of Pursuit to counter it.
Asked above: What is Pursuit?: Pursuit is a Combat Mod unit/promotion ability that directly counteracts the withdrawal chances of the unit being fought. Thus, if I attack with a Unit that has 120% Withdrawal Probability in total, and it goes up against a unit with 70% Pursuit, my chance of Withdrawal is reduced to 50%.
Pursuit could also be multiplicative, so if you have 70% Withdrawal and 50% Pursuit the net would be 35% Withdrawal.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I thought of that too but I'd much prefer it was not.
A) Just makes it tougher for the player to figure out exactly what they will get from a promo's benefit.
B) Since its directly in opposition of the Withdrawal amount, its harder to get an accurate comparison of actual skill development to compare directly.
C) Would greatly complicate the odds structure which is complicated enough if the above was attempted to be resolved in any fashion.
In short, with pursuit in play, the concept is just an unnecessary complexity. Easy enough (probably much easier overall) to use the same IF statement to only make things multiplicative for the withdrawal probability and turn off that mathematical tweak if pursuit is being used instead. Certainly easier for the player to comprehend without having to answer tough mathematical questions frequently
A) Just makes it tougher for the player to figure out exactly what they will get from a promo's benefit.
B) Since its directly in opposition of the Withdrawal amount, its harder to get an accurate comparison of actual skill development to compare directly.
C) Would greatly complicate the odds structure which is complicated enough if the above was attempted to be resolved in any fashion.
In short, with pursuit in play, the concept is just an unnecessary complexity. Easy enough (probably much easier overall) to use the same IF statement to only make things multiplicative for the withdrawal probability and turn off that mathematical tweak if pursuit is being used instead. Certainly easier for the player to comprehend without having to answer tough mathematical questions frequently
I thought of that too but I'd much prefer it was not.
A) Just makes it tougher for the player to figure out exactly what they will get from a promo's benefit.
B) Since its directly in opposition of the Withdrawal amount, its harder to get an accurate comparison of actual skill development to compare directly.
C) Would greatly complicate the odds structure which is complicated enough if the above was attempted to be resolved in any fashion.
In short, with pursuit in play, the concept is just an unnecessary complexity. Easy enough (probably much easier overall) to use the same IF statement to only make things multiplicative for the withdrawal probability and turn off that mathematical tweak if pursuit is being used instead. Certainly easier for the player to comprehend without having to answer tough mathematical questions frequently
All that complexity is easily solved with an actual effects hover text, same as we do for multiplicative effects on other things.
I don't know, but it does say 165% withdrawal chance and survival guaranteed. If you're changing the system anyway it doesn't quite matter.
By the way, in V28 with dynamic experience I get 6 points for successfull withdrawal.
Attachments
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Well...
1) We don't have an Actual Effects hover text on promos, which I'm thinking would be problematic with the current additional methods being used there.
2) It does NOT solve the problem of mathematics between Pursuit and Withdrawal. Let's presume you have a 100 value Withdrawal (thus its actually 75% withdrawalProbability right?) Then we have a 50% Pursuit - which is still 50%. This then makes the overall chance of withdrawal 25%. This makes for some unfair math imo.
It's simply not necessary to cap withdrawal amounts if pursuit is in play. Far more important to allow amounts over 100% withdrawal probability to enforce that players need to develop pursuing units to keep this possible strategic weakness covered. (Particularly when Early Withdrawal is also a factor!)
@JJ: ugh... 6 means that somehow the math is doubling the base award for withdrawal under the dynamic xp option... oyvay! Yes, that should be looked into no matter how repugnant I find Dynamic XP. Certainly doesn't balance to the usual .25 exp award from a fight.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
How would your plan address that? I believe the problem there is that Dynamic XP is awarding XP under a differing method. If you wish to look into that, I'd certainly support the effort!
I was under the impression that the issue was with units getting xp from battles they couldn't lose. I can easily adjust Dynamic XP to give reduced XP on withdrawal to units with high withdrawal.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yeah, I've done something along those lines for NON-Dynamic XP awards (based the award on the difficulty of the withdrawal) since v28, but I'm not sure if the current SVN version includes that change for Dynamic XP awards or not. The more I think about it the more I think Dynamic XP may not vary Withdrawal XP awards at all. I'm also wondering, since he said he was getting 6 and not the 3 it should've been, if the award is being doubled up somehow, which could still be a persistent bug causing whatever the amount to be to be doubled by being added twice in the processing sequence, once at achieving the withdrawal in the code processing and once more at the end of the battle perhaps... Maybe you could take a look.
If Dynamic XP doesn't take withdrawal exp into account at all that would mean that we should adapt the award so that it DOES take the option into account and the method for award become assigned on a 'float' value rather than an int value if Dynamic XP is in use. Thus the amount awarded can be decimalized down to a minimum of .25 like any other xp award under the Dynamic XP system.
If Dynamic XP doesn't take withdrawal exp into account at all that would mean that we should adapt the award so that it DOES take the option into account and the method for award become assigned on a 'float' value rather than an int value if Dynamic XP is in use. Thus the amount awarded can be decimalized down to a minimum of .25 like any other xp award under the Dynamic XP system.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Shouldn't need one at the moment but I can say an update to the SVN would probably help a bit already.
Again V28:
1. The culture unit swazi tracker, with strength 10 available at iron working, is a bit overpowered. The others don't get strength 10 units before smithing, and you can't get special bonuses against hunter class, so you can't easily counter them.
2. The malinese hero unit Mansa Sakura is too strong (19) in order to be available at literature. Make him weaker, or make guilds also required as planned (in pedia text guilds are mentioned as a requirement, but they are not required).
1. The culture unit swazi tracker, with strength 10 available at iron working, is a bit overpowered. The others don't get strength 10 units before smithing, and you can't get special bonuses against hunter class, so you can't easily counter them.
2. The malinese hero unit Mansa Sakura is too strong (19) in order to be available at literature. Make him weaker, or make guilds also required as planned (in pedia text guilds are mentioned as a requirement, but they are not required).
Both of these have been changed now. The Hero now has strength 13 and the Swazi Tracker has strength 8.
No. I need to write Ai for food caravans and for story teller line units, whichni hope to do before v29
And at any rate just going and deleting stuff without consulting people is not a good idea.
