Balance testing release r4297

[EDMatt]

I am exporting the files which I am going to be uploading sometime tomorrow, it shows step by step how rush army is built and explains it in detail. I will make sure that i upload it and post it here.

@Sado : Rush is not dependent on the market at all.
unless you want a few quick ponnies.

[sado1]

I was sure you were boosting the production with trunk->iron or smth like that. OK, I guess most of my questions will be answered today then, so I won't even bother asking them yet.

[dicsoupcan]

the first rushes sarted without market sado, after that the market only helped boosting it.

[Lewin]

the first rushes sarted without market sado, after that the market only helped boosting it.

I didn't realise that, from Bo's description I thought the market was the key element of this rush strategy (maybe no changes to the market are needed if it's not the cause of the unbalance?). I'll be interested to see EdMatt's description of how it works.

[dicsoupcan]

the first rushes sarted without market sado, after that the market only helped boosting it.

I didn't realise that, from Bo's description I thought the market was the key element of this rush strategy (maybe no changes to the market are needed if it's not the cause of the unbalance?). I'll be interested to see EdMatt's description of how it works.

as far as i know the first rushes that were made are made without a market on back in the desert, and later they experimented with the market to make the rushes more powerfull, by trading tree trunks for more more iron and horses, or in some cases early leather.

i even believe i have a replay of the no market version.

*edit* yes i do have a replay, they called it back in the desert small base imba. this game is from the official release, not the balance testing release. This is also the first rush they made as far as i know.

[Jeronimo]

Rush has nothing to do with market.

If you say that trading 6 trunks x 1 horse is the key of the victory, that's silly.
6 possible extra militias go into a horse.

Besides, is it really worth to fill your base with trees? I would build [3 farms/1 stable] instead.
-------------------------------

What we see now in the balance test is the "evolution" of [crossbowmen+pikemen+militia] into [knights+swordmen+militia].
Probably more powerful because leather opponent traditionally goes to mass [crossbowmen+axe fighters] and are totally owned.

Again, nothing to do with market. I hope the so expected Matt's analysis can revalidate my points.

It annoys me to read how the Market has become the "scapegoat" to blame, everytime someone complains about a strategy.

[The Dark Lord]

I've had a really busy week and haven't had time to read everything, I just want to make a small point (for now... ).
I don't know whether the market is overpowered again or not, I don't know whether you can have 20 soldiers more after peace time with the market than without; just this: if the marketplace allows for strategies that are not possible to do without it, it is at least what we can call 'imbalanced'. You see, with the market Matt may be able to make 15 knights, 15 sword fighters and 100 militia because he trades tree trunks for horses. I don't know if this is possible to do without the marketplace, but let us assume for now that it isn't. You can still say 'no problem, I'll make pikemen instead of knights, that counters the market strategy so it is not overpowered or imbalanced because I can beat it'. But the fact that the marketplace would allow such a strategy, which is impossible to do without the marketplace makes it imbalanced. People who do not use the marketplace (no egoism here! ) would be limited in their choices.

[vojta_f]

rush tactic in the game - left vs right -
Matt's all-in rush vs Czech team anti-rush defense

[Jeronimo]

rush tactic in the game - left vs right -
Matt's all-in rush vs Czech team anti-rush defense

I wonder what was sado doing the first 5 minutes... his army was afk, so basically a 2v3 in the rush part.
It would be more interesting to see "leather anti-rush" vs "iron rush" anyway...
Also quite lucky George could engage Romeks and Matts knights 3 times at least.
BTW, quite dirty way to ruin the map by digging it heavily... Is not really that necessary IMO.

Rushing is more about lots of Militia than about buying a few horses.

[Lewin]

I mostly agree with The Dark Lord's post, players who use the market should not get a significant advantage over players who do not (the market should not allow you to get significantly more troops). It may allow different army compositions and strategies, but the overall army strength should not be greater with the market. By reducing the trade loss to 2.0 from 2.5 we might have broken this, I haven't seen much evidence either way.

As for the rush strategy, it actually sounds like a good thing in principle, building a small town with lots of woodcutters and making lots of militia is a different strategy to a normal boring village with every type of building. This is more variety of strategies you can use, and that's a great thing because the game will be more varied and less predictable. However, the "rush strategy" should not be over powered compared to a "normal strategy". I haven't played much Starcraft, but I've heard of "zerg rushes", and this sounds similar. In Starcraft they managed to balance it so zerg rushes are a viable but not overpowered strategy, and hopefully we can do the same for these militia rushes

We certainly do not want militia rush to become the default way to play for most people. Large villages that produce a variety of materials/weapons is what we want the majority of play to focus around, but a few highly skilled players can try out risky strategies like militia rushes that sometimes pay off. IMO it would be great if there are a lot of different strategies to choose from. So for example before you play you could choose to use one of these strategies: (maybe these aren't the real choices, I'm just giving an example)
- Iron and leather
- Leather only
- Iron only
- Militia rush
- Use market to sell raw materials for weapons
And within each strategy there are many more choices of course: what food to make, army composition, size of your village, number of schools, etc. etc.

I think it would be really great if we can make all of these strategies fairly well balanced so none of them are significantly more powerful than others (except perhaps "iron and leather" which is sort of the default strategy so I don't mind if it is more reliable and easier to pull off)

So what exactly are the imbalances with militia rushing? How can they be countered? How did this new balance release effect the strategy? Is the market creating any significant imbalance as Bo implied?
Cheers,
Lewin.

[-George Stain-]

IMO rush doesen't fit to KaM, it's very easy to do and too much strong atm. what about medium and less skilled players? they have totaly 0% chance to defend this rush.. build stabbile economy is much more harder in 1 hour, than tons of woodcuters and some workshops and iron industry.. I donť know what TDL means with Leather anti-rush or what.. but it's sound weird for me.. I think that only way how to counter all in rush is doing bigger rush.. maybe I am wrong, teach me about game

long life for 1:08 long time games

[Krom]

I'd like to stress on a fact that we believe KaM is a sandbox kind of game where building perfect town is a goal. Well .. this is wrong for MP. MP is aimed at result, no matter the cost. I doubt one spends whole lot of 60min in Starcraft carefully planning his town, to be able to hire 25 Tanks after PT ends and send them to bash the enemy or get screwed by 120 zerglings. AFAIK Starcraft uses larger count of smaller portions of troops and has better defences.

Maybe we need to deeper investigate the roots of the KaM rush problem.

What is so bad about rushes and 60PT ? The fact that we need to build the base not knowing what opponent will bring. We need to put 60min of effort just to get 10min brawl. And in case one is not a rusher, he's got only 20 axeman vs. 60 militia, who just win by sheer count.

What would we had if we had 120PT? Even bigger gap between Pros/Rushers and amateurs. Imagine the same thing, 20 woodcutters, 1 bakery, and 210 militia boom.

Ideas:
Maybe we should test shorter PT (45min) and add some more defensive elements that let weaker player buy more time to survive and partially negate rushing enemy.

[-George Stain-]

Krom is smart boy

problem is much more deeper than only market values.. we are trying remodel KaM to multiplayer real time strategy.. but we are missing basic thing, which is RTS environment.. (how you can counter rush, that you don't know rush is comming, you need another 25 min to resolve this problem, but you have just 4 minute than your city will die all..)

and only possible extra defense are empty towers, emptied by workers..

btw IMO 45 min PT = big army and no food.. I don't like this way much..

[Romek]

Rush can be stopped. Its nothing imbalanced. The only fact is that you cant beat rush in open area. But its not so hard to beat rush army in your own base. The biggest problem in the defense city makes builder rush. In most of MP games u cant use power of your towers because rusher propably can see ur base and for sure he will do builder rush before PT. That means you need something like barricade (Mully Wall ) or need to call your mates for help as fast as possible. Personally i have nothing aganist rush.

[-George Stain-]

I would be glad, if towers can't shoot citizens.. this is possible way how to reduce enemy rush, with many towers.. rushes are usualy with melee units.. so they can't destroy your towers from distance.. and you can reduce his number advantage, fighting between towers..