Author Topic: The new rebalanced items_kinds1 and troops.txt(Can't think of anything original)  (Read 50479 times)

Offline Grothag

  • Craftsman
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Quote
Probably you should just tweak the stats for those units you feel are unnecessarily weakened or strengthened. If you're open to discussion on that part, feel free  to tell us which units you feel that way about and we'll provide feedback.

Sadly i haven't played the mod that much, and my only real experience is with Mordor fighting against Gondor, Rohan and very little Mirkwood and to do this I have to know the behaviour of all the factions troops, so tweaking just several will mean disbalancing the others......

Also there are some weird stuff like all the troops are having the same proff with all weapons - archers with the same proff in Archery and 1/2H and polearms is quite weird, as well as Spearmen with the same Archery etc. So a redo of their Proff stats is inevitable. I'll remove all the not used proff from the troops, 'cause the AI won't use anything except the weapons in it's arsenal and also that way the player can understand a lot more easily what's the role of the troops, although most of them are easily recognisable from the name.

P.S. I've started changing the Attrib, using the model with little diff in this stat category for the same race - so all humans will have very similar Attribs, elves too, etc, although I won't leave them identical, so there will be slight diff here and there, depending on the lvl and the faction, for a flavour. Also the diff types of troops will differ a little bit too - melee inf and cav with slightly higher Str and  archers and mounted archers with higher Agility.
There will be bigger difference among the races - dwarves and to little lesser extent uruk-hai and uruks will be the "strongest" races, followed by Beorn's offspring. On the other hand the elves are the most "agile" race, so they'll lead all other races in Agility, followed by orcs. Men are the most "balanced" - they don't excel neither in Str nor Agi, but they don't lack neither too.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 12:04:02 pm by Grothag »

Offline vota dc

  • Journeyman
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
In the new version we have already give to elven infantry more wp than archers....archers used to have more because they were tier 6. About archery to infantry is just because we use wp (number)....else we have to wp_melee (number) | wp_throwing (number) | wp_archery (number) that is longer....since it doesn't affect infantry because infantry is bowless. That is with native m&b too.

There are also special troops with better proficiency: gondor ranger are now more skilled than gondor archer (well gondor archer have a 40 armor...we give a reason to use the ranger), lossarnach are more skilled with axes but they are skilled like regular infantry in throwing weapons. Pinnath Gelin are good with polearms but average with swords and so on.

However for the old version with the exception of some elves (already fixed) we have no archers that beat melee of the same tier even if we haven't refined this aspect because melee already have a better gear and better power strike....just like M&B Native.

Offline Gopblin

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Grothag,

As far as I remember lore-wise, Elves are both more agile and stronger than orcs and humans; physically, they're all-around better. The later image of an elf being more agile but weaker is due to D&D balancing of the races, but the original LotR elves are quite strong.

As far as I remember Silmarillion, Morgoth pretty much gave up on sending Orcs against Noldor - Elves would wipe the floor with them in hand-to-hand regardless of the number. Morgoth only won major battles after he managed to grow dragons.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

Offline vota dc

  • Journeyman
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
Sad the age after become pussies that cry for daddy Eru to repel a half elves invasion , cry to friend human to help them to repel Morgoth bootlicker, and them cry to humans to repel in their place Morgoth bootlicker without phisical form lol.
But in Lotr half elves are stronger just because they breed more? For example Aragorn has more disavantages than an elf, in term of lifespan and other things like not being able to walk without leaving footprint on snow. In the mod Dunedain have same skill of elves except they get a tier less.

Offline Gopblin

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Dunedain are not half-elves, they're just tall humans that sided with the elves. Aragorn has a tiny bit of Elven blood in him I think, but I may be mistaken.

The reason Numenor was a threat to Valinor is simply because there were a lot of humans - yes, they bred more. I seriously doubt Numenorians could take on Elves one-on-one, although they were certainly far better than say Orcs.

Same thing goes for the Last Alliance - at that point, there were simply too few Elves left in Middle-Earth to take on Sauron without help. Moreover, Elves and Men curbstomped Sauron despite him having the One Ring.

TLD is set during the time when the very last Elves are leaving - there are very few of them left, and they don't feel particularly compelled to fight for a place they'd be leaving very soon.

Best wishes,
Daniel

Offline Arkerless

  • Craftsman
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Grothag,

As far as I remember lore-wise, Elves are both more agile and stronger than orcs and humans; physically, they're all-around better. The later image of an elf being more agile but weaker is due to D&D balancing of the races, but the original LotR elves are quite strong.

While this is true, they are also portrayed as primarily gracile and agile, and only strong secondarily. Superhuman strength? Yes, certainly. But perhaps on par with an Uruk and below a Dwarf in brute force alone, and more known for speed, agility, and subtleties of the mind than for their strength.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 04:11:11 pm by Arkerless »

Offline Rene Korda

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
@ Grothag

It's up to you, of course, but the changes you're listing seem to me to be redundant and unnecessary. Why even bother with the proficiencies? Do they work badly? Hurt the balance? There really is no point in touching them just to make the stats look neat. Same goes for the attributes - do we really need to pretend to "realistically" model racial traits using two absolutely artificial stats (as only strength and agility play a role with NPC troops)? You seem to be doing the same thing you've done with Pierce damage - taking game conventions for parameters taken directly from the real world. They're just conventions, they shouldn't correspond to reality - the game should, that's what you're aiming for. That's why extensive testing is required, unfortunately. How else can you be sure you're going the right way?

The only point of bothering with modifying troops.txt is to change the balance in a meaningful way. Otherwise, you're better off just playing the mod, instead of wasting time on ill-planned re-workings.

Offline Arkerless

  • Craftsman
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
The only point of bothering with modifying troops.txt is to change the balance in a meaningful way. Otherwise, you're better off just playing the mod, instead of wasting time on ill-planned re-workings.

Well from a balance perspective I am tempted to go through and do the whole file once just like Ron did with items - just to impose some sort of order to start with so you have some sort of baseline to tweak.

On the other hand you dont need to fix what aint broke and especially given the amount of time it takes to work through that file using the clunky tool I found to do it, so your approach obviously has some strong recommendation too.

While not every setting that I would change if I went all compulsive on that file again really has direct game affect - the stock troops file is just as crazy as the stock items file and as a result I tend to lean his way.


Offline The Yogi

  • Guildsman
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
@Grothag

Quote
Do you see how many factors and uncertain things are listed here? Also the longbow is not more powerful than good quality eastern composite bows - they can pack the same "punch", but are made with diff technology and materials.

Uncertain, to be sure. But you are modding as if there was certainty the OTHER way. From the tests we do have (and longbows were not the typical kind of european bows anyway, most were far weaker) mail  with propper padding might well have been night near impervious to arrows. And the accounts we have (did you bother to read any of them?) support the idea that mail with padding was highly effective protection against arrows, even Turkis (sarracen) arrows (the Turks are likely to have used far better than the average European bows).

All in all, all evidence we have, although certainly not conclusive, point towards mail being if not totally arrow proof, then at least somewhat arrow proof. Two-three solid hits, at range, might easily be an wildly optimistic estimate of how many arrows it takes for a "kill" (incapacitation).

Here are two of the accounts that support this view, confirming the results of the experiments:

Quote
Joinville {...} later recounts an incident involving Walter of Châtillon in which Saracen missiles were ineffective:

...and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again... Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.

Quote
During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:

...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.

Clearly, surviving a great number of hits when properly armoured in mail and a padded jack (which was unvariably worn with mail, either on top or under) is by no means a fantasy. On the contrary, the foot in the above example seem completely unfazed by the hail of arrows, trusting their good mail to keep them safe from the Sarracen missiles.

Lore-wise, the only times arrows seem to count for much is when fired at poorly or non armoured foes, such as Boromir in his last battle or orcs.

I'd stronly recommend going back to cutting damage for arrows. It far more accurately simulates the effect of arrows on mail, as far as we can determine from (admittedely imperfect) experiments and first hand accounts.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 05:04:06 pm by The Yogi »

Offline Rene Korda

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
@ Arkerless

It can only be done with certain specific in-game balance in mind. As I see it, there is no point to invent this balance out of the blue, it's already present in the game. If something about seems to be wrong lore- or reality-wise, only then should changes be planned and implemented. Here - http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,2711.0.html - I've raised one such possible issue with the cavalry. I've also buffed Rhun and Dale a bit and corrected mistakes in the troops file that's available as optional download with RCM. Some kind of balance is already present there, as I don't see anything glaringly immersion-breaking in my games (bear in mind that Ron's equipment already does a decent job of making combat closer to reality). I understand the wish to make it better, but I doubt it's that easy as it seems, extensive playtesting would be required before good results can be achieved.

Offline Arkerless

  • Craftsman
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
I like your cavalry thread.

What I mean about the troop stats is just that, like with the items, you need some kind of baseline setup before you can even figure out how to approach a balance issue. Say troop X is overpowered in comparison to Y. Which do you raise and which do you lower? And how? Wrong anser may fix the relation between them but mess up another.

So I look at them and try to figure out where the problem is. And I need to have or be able to assemble a baseline idea of what the equivelant troop of different factions but the same rank, or different type but same rank and faction... well if there is one I have trouble seeing it at least. Having skills all at the same level, for instance - sure it doesnt affect the game if they have a skill for a weapon they dont carry. But when archers are carrying swords too and they are better with them than the infantry it might well affect the game.

This is the reason that I would be tempted to go ahead and impose a bunch of conventions that you quite correctly point out dont really have to go in. Just because they help the brain make sense out of it all and keep track. Set a baseline, perhaps based on how the PC skills and stats work, so an idealised baseline troop of level x and type y would work out to have these stats and this much prof. in his primary and this much skill in his secondary (archers should never be quite as good with their swords as they are their bows) weapons, a certain number of skills based on the numbers that  a character gets, split up in a way that reflects their role. Each actual troop of that type might be a little different, of course, but you have a baseline so you can identify and justify deviations, and when you go to balance you can see just exactly what is different between the troop that is working right and the one that isnt.

It is a LOT of work though. I understand how much, I did maybe 10-15% of it with the last version before I realised how much work it was, and just quit playing until this patch came out instead. Knowing it was about to come out doing the work just seemed extra masochistic.

Offline Grothag

  • Craftsman
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Thanks for the comments guys.

First to explain why I'm doing this - like Arkerless said
Quote
But when archers are carrying swords too and they are better with them than the infantry it might well affect the game.
. Things like this really spoil the fun for me, as they're quite illogical and have nothing to do with the game balance. The 2nd huge force driving me forward is that i like my games tough. I always played M&B(and all mods) with everything set at the hardest and most of the time i find it too easy. I don't see a point to handicap the AI, as being AI is enough handicap  :lol:. So why we as players should have better stats than the AI, bearing in mind that we're not scripted or limited by anything, but the game mechanics? 
That's why I'm redoing the whole file - to make stats similar to the players at this lvl and to iron some inconsistencies.
I'm sure that vota dc will do good job with balancing this in the next patch, but I'm not sure if he'll make them hard enough ;) .

Also i know how hard and how much time it takes - i was the only coder for 2 full versions of a big overhaul mod for M2:TW and I almost finished total conversation mod for M&B 1.03 by  myself, few years back, but didn't released it.
And I'm a stubborn person too  :P

Quote
Grothag,

As far as I remember lore-wise, Elves are both more agile and stronger than orcs and humans; physically, they're all-around better. The later image of an elf being more agile but weaker is due to D&D balancing of the races, but the original LotR elves are quite strong.

AFAIR from reading all the Tolkiens(both his and his son's) writings, I don't remember elves to be represented as stronger than humans - yes, more beautiful, gracious, agile, skilled as well as much more resistant to diseases and other kinds of sickness(like poison, illnesses etc) both mental and physical. I might be wrong though, but can you correct me with quotes?

@The Yogi
Quote
Uncertain, to be sure. But you are modding as if there was certainty the OTHER way.
Indeed. There are a lot of ppl nowdays, that try to come up with s'thing, just for the sole purpose to be interesting and to take funds for "research". I prefer to believe the writings of scholars, historians etc. which were alive during that period. In this case a quote from a East Roman historian - "The Mоеsian arrows have broken the Avalon spears" - after one of the many big battles between Bulgarians and Romans. Here we're talking about one of the best armies during this time, both in training and equipment, against an army with huge traditions in archery and riding. The history knows many battles like this.

About your quotes - they might be little exaggereted, as it's quite common in the writings then to be used hyperboles or understatements, but even if they're 100% true, there are big diff between the arab bows and the bows used f.e. by cumans, pechenegs, huns, english/welsh etc.

I really don't want to argue on this matter further - if my stats are "broken" and very unrealistic I'll switch them, but I really doubt that from the tests so far.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2012, 02:40:18 am by Grothag »

Offline Rene Korda

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Let's even look at your archer-infantry example. Why should the archer necessarily have lower melee skills then the infantryman? If he were a specialized trained bowman - maybe. But what if he's a member of militia (say, Elven)? He could be equally trained to use both. Maybe he was a swordsman on a previous campaign. My point is, you can easily twist this any way you want, without making the situation unrealistic. And this is a simple issue. What about racial differences? They're not at all obvious from Tolkien's writing and allow a huge amount of interpretation. And I could go on and on.

My point is, these are not the items, any kind of norm upon which to base would be good for the troops. Doing a complete re-haul is a waste of time, what we should concentrate on is polishing out the imbalances in the current version. Should we, perhaps, lower the elven, dwarven and/or orcish stats? Maybe buff Rhun and Dale some more? That way we'll be actually moving towards an ideal balance (as we see it) instead of chasing our own tails.

It'd be cool if the version devs are currently making worked well with RCM, but it probably won't. They seem to be balancing everything simultaneously, without setting one parameter (like items are set in RCM) to some standard and basing everything else on it. The end result will probably be troops with inconsistent stats, set in a manner not very compatible with RCM items file. So we'll probably have to make do with the current troops file, or whatever remake we make of it.

Offline Merlkir

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5742
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantArt online Gallery
 ::) Yeah, we should really set one parameter, ey, otherwise we're just wasting our time.
Here's my gallery: http://merlkir.deviantart.com/

I'm now painting and drawing commissions. I'll paint portraits, pets, girlfriends, favourite characters..you name it. Send me a PM if interested ;)

Offline Rene Korda

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
The idea behind RCM was to set two parameters - equipment and physics - in such a way that they would resemble their real-world counterparts. That's because these two parameters actually have their real-world counterparts, which can't be said about troop stats (too abstract) or party compositions. That's what I meant by "setting one parameter to a standard".

What vota_dc seems to be doing is changing all the parameters at once to achieve certain envisaged balance between units. This is counter to the design method behind RCM and the end results will probably be ill-compatible. Perhaps the current troop file will have to be kept and/or modified for RCM use, instead of the new one. Anyway, we'll see that when the update arrives.