Stat Caps - Fail Safes - Guild Warfare

I want to start this post with an example.

The chances of rolling each side in a 6 sided die is 1/6. However, if you roll the die 6 times, it doesn't mean that you will roll each side once per time. In order to statistically be accurate, you need to roll the die a few hundred times to roll each side with about a 16,6% probability.

Tbh, I have often found that the God of Luck is not friendly towards me, having endured occasions when I rolled 20 dice, needing 4 dice 4+, only to get 2 out of 20. However, if I was to roll 400 dice, the numbers would be better...but.....yeah..

Now, in the above example we only have 1 die with 6 sides and 6 outcomes. Try to imagine how many things are affecting the outcome of an engagement between units and you will understand the complexity and the synergies involved in the outcome (Eg. no. of units, Melee, Strength, Endurance, Reaction, No. of Attacks, Armor, Morale, Flanking/Rearing, Shivering, Hero, Items, Special Abilities, etc.)

Therefore, playing against a unit and losing, doesn't immediately mean that there exists an imbalance. Too many variables to reach to a conclusion even after 10-15 battles. Nobody wants to lose, but against a human player, it is possible... Our job is to retain balance between units and mechanics in order to give an equal chance to all the participants in a battle to be victorious.

As you can understand, we have our own simulations where we can test units against each other and verify whether they are balanced or not. Each simulation is ran 100.000 times with the click of a button and a ratio dictates victory/loss for each unit charging in turns. As each race/unit has different characteristics, in order to add some elements of lore in the game, a 5%-10% difference in the victory/loss ratio is acceptable, as tactics is another piece of the puzzle. However, rest assured that in most cases it is almost 50/50 (49/51 - 52/48 etc.), as the more balanced the stats are, the more important the tactics are on the battlefield.

Having said all the above, there was a teeny tiny mistake in the simulation we did for the stat caps, as we used the SAME Reaction for all the units. As a result, after the recent changes in stat caps, some match-ups were not that balanced and all the simulations needed to be redone. Reaction IS an important variable and the difference between a unit which has 7 and another which has 9 is quite big with the same stats. Therefore, more changes have been made and a new table will be posted. We are quite happy with the new changes and confident that the system is absolutely balanced now. We still want to add the AP Item restriction per level as well, but this will have to wait..

In regards to the downtime 2 days ago, we believe we found the source of "evil" and we "banished" it for good. However, we decided to add a few more fail safes in an effort to prevent situations such as this. Therefore we designed and developed a different system which will automatically monitor the game every 30 secs and depending on the situation, it will act accordingly in an effort to bring the game up, in the case of a "disaster". We also set another system which will take specific DB backups (Regional Info, CPs, Influence, Guilds, etc.) at the end of each conquest cycle, in order to prevent situations when Regions are lost because of downtime. This is extremely important when Guild Warfare is enabled. We respect your time and effort in the game and we wouldn't want technical glitches ruin your gameplay experience.

Having to design, develop and implement all the above, we had to push back the launch of Guild Warfare. Better safe than sorry...

You devs are doing great and working hard thanks for taking a look at the stats and simulation again and can't wait to see then new table. Please include heroes and LIA this time

Hey Runeslayer, could you please tell us the reaction value you were running the tests at?
Btw I knew reaction was an important stat to consider, that's why I calculated it as a modifier in my simple equations despite someone was still in doubt of its influence in battles

Omg Rune, it's like the direct public reply to my PM's questions (did my PM inspire you to write this? ), and sooo interesting to read. Really thanks for posting this   

And yes, I'll repeat - keep posting such stuff whenever you can, keep informing us. Lol i'm not even angry about another DL semi-nerf, because... information <3

p.s. friendly warning/reminder:  i'll try DL in battle after new caps and if they die most of the time, I'll whine!

And yea it's better to first ensure less downtime than give us GW, but still, we don't want to wait LONG for it.

Again, such a nice long post

Fyrr wrote:

Omg Rune, it's like the direct public reply to my PM's questions (did my PM inspire you to write this? ), and sooo interesting to read. Really thanks for posting this   

And yes, I'll repeat - keep posting such stuff whenever you can, keep informing us. Lol i'm not even angry about another DL semi-nerf, because... information <3

p.s. friendly warning/reminder:  i'll try DL in battle after new caps and if they die most of the time, I'll whine!

And yea it's better to first ensure less downtime than give us GW, but still, we don't want to wait LONG for it.

Again, such a nice long post

After the update, any whining coming from players will not reach our ears! lol After the simulations we are more than certain that units 1 Vs 1 are well balanced. It is up to the players how they use them and what tactics they use to maximize their efficiency. Most of the ratios are 50/50 in 100.000 attempts and with both units charging in turns. Be an efficient General Fyrr and not a point w***e and I guarantee you that the stats are perfect.

K Rune, pick your best lighty army because when I'll have all the godlike items I need for my DL I'm gonna release my rage pvping you ahahah

Souless wrote:

K Rune, pick your best lighty army because when I'll have all the godlike items I need for my DL I'm gonna release my rage pvping you ahahah

Souless, my Trollslayers will eat your DL for breakfast...and without their runed battleaxes...

RuneSlayer wrote:

Souless wrote:

K Rune, pick your best lighty army because when I'll have all the godlike items I need for my DL I'm gonna release my rage pvping you ahahah

Souless, my Trollslayers will eat your DL for breakfast...and without their runed battleaxes...

Just pray to not replace our DL cavalry with a chaos chariot or replacing our lesser demons with bloodletters because the table would reverse in my favour  

Souless wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Souless wrote:

K Rune, pick your best lighty army because when I'll have all the godlike items I need for my DL I'm gonna release my rage pvping you ahahah

Souless, my Trollslayers will eat your DL for breakfast...and without their runed battleaxes...

Just pray to not replace our DL cavalry with a chaos chariot or replacing our lesser demons with bloodletters because the table would reverse in my favour  

Souless, you've been playing Warhammer too much...

RuneSlayer wrote:

After the update, any whining coming from players will not reach our ears! lol After the simulations we are more than certain that units 1 Vs 1 are well balanced. It is up to the players how they use them and what tactics they use to maximize their efficiency. Most of the ratios are 50/50 in 100.000 attempts and with both units charging in turns. Be an efficient General Fyrr and not a point w***e and I guarantee you that the stats are perfect.

Shhh about my numbers addiction!  

1vs1? Can you give more info?  
Hm, only ungeared or/and fully capped or totally random? And what about archers (elves should clearly win this!)? Heavy vs cavalry? LI vs LIA? DL anti-elves vs elven shields? .. The godlike OPness will still continue to slice all the rest I imagine. But if you're certain that you balanced units well, then you shouldn't fear my whining.  

(expected result: Rune will ignore my questions, but still, worth the try, maybe he's in a good mood...)

RuneSlayer wrote:

Souless, my Trollslayers will eat your DL for breakfast...and without their runed battleaxes...

Lol and you just talked about a total balance and players skill! Poor DL


..and the further discussion went nowhere, haha.

Fyrr wrote:

Shhh about my numbers addiction! Suspect

1vs1? Can you give more info? Smile
Hm, only ungeared or/and fully capped or totally random? And what about archers (elves should clearly win this!)? Heavy vs cavalry? LI vs LIA? DL anti-elves vs elven shields? .. The godlike OPness will still continue to slice all the rest I imagine. But if you're certain that you balanced units well, then you shouldn't fear my whining. Wink

(expected result: Rune will ignore my questions, but still, worth the try, maybe he's in a good mood...)

Simulations have been made with starting stats and capped stats. Simulations with random numbers have no meaning....

Heavy Infantry Vs Cavalry? LI Vs LIA? DL Anti-Elves Vs Elven Shields? You will have to find out on the battlefield.

As for the Godlike OPness, I won't agree with you. Without a doubt a well equipped unit will probably be more efficient than an ill equipped unit, but should we punish the player who put time and effort to gather all the good gear? Then again, the matchmaking process will handle the APs and provide fair matches.

Fyrr wrote:

Lol and you just talked about a total balance and players skill! Poor DL Razz


..and the further discussion went nowhere, haha.

I talked about a player's skill...Not RuneSlayer's skill

..and yes...I'm in a good mood. I had 2 rough days doing simulations trying to find out what was wrong with the system...only to find out it was the wrong reaction values...

RuneSlayer wrote:

..and yes...I'm in a good mood. I had 2 rough days doing simulations trying to find out what was wrong with the system...only to find out it was the wrong reaction values...

Oh my lucky day  And I quite like you in such a mood  And your work ofc.

And yes yes I agree about godlikes, I use them myself, so wouldn't like to be punished .
I was more worried that I'm too good vs random non-gl armies (=a bit boring), but that's to be expected I guess.

RuneSlayer wrote:

I talked about a player's skill...Not RuneSlayer's skill

damn, how could I miss this... Perfect logic

Runeeee I'll buy gems only to unleash my rage on you in PvP ahahahh  give me that chance to test out the balance you made at least

Souless wrote:

Runeeee I'll buy gems only to unleash my rage on you in PvP ahahahh  give me that chance to test out the balance you made at least

We may already have played against each other... or..maybe not..

thanks for your commitment to iron out the glitches and bugs. but just to know, will the guild warfare gonna be launched any time soon? i am a programmer myself and also very talented to avoid any commitment to release dates, but it would be very nice to know your best expectation of the GW release.
thanks for a great game!

RuneSlayer wrote:

but should we punish the player who put time and effort to gather all the good gear?

Didn´t you kinda do just that with the lesser gold rewards without lower repair costs?  

Btt, nice to see how fast you react and adapt to keep the gaming experience the best possible. I would not want to see your inbox when two hours after you implement GW the server crashes while you sit in a dark room with cigars and (lots of) beer, congratulating yourself and celebrating the next big step in this game without anyone monitoring the server!  

nathor wrote:

thanks for your commitment to iron out the glitches and bugs. but just to know, will the guild warfare gonna be launched any time soon? i am a programmer myself and also very talented to avoid any commitment to release dates, but it would be very nice to know your best expectation of the GW release.
thanks for a great game!

The first layer of GW should go live either tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

Zara wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

but should we punish the player who put time and effort to gather all the good gear?

Didn´t you kinda do just that with the lesser gold rewards without lower repair costs?  

Btt, nice to see how fast you react and adapt to keep the gaming experience the best possible. I would not want to see your inbox when two hours after you implement GW the server crashes while you sit in a dark room with cigars and (lots of) beer, congratulating yourself and celebrating the next big step in this game without anyone monitoring the server!  

It is not that bad Zara..It is just that you were all used to the "Golden Age"...

I don't drink and I don't smoke, so don't worry... Servers won't crush with the first layer of GW...However, in 1-2 weeks the servers will be tested...

RuneSlayer wrote:

It is not that bad Zara..It is just that you were all used to the "Golden Age"...

Should I show you my expenses list? :PAnd what would you call *this* age?

RuneSlayer wrote:

I don't drink and I don't smoke, so don't worry...

1. A dwarf who doesn't drink. Ha!
2. IRL it's actually nice - no smoke breaks or hangovers to interrupt the workflow  
3. we will still worry, don't deny us that.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Servers won't crush with the first layer of GW...However, in 1-2 weeks the servers will be tested...

Uh, NOOB SWARM? Or even worse? :S

(and wow, Rune answering almost every question in select threads, even about plans, I wonder when this bonus attention will end, lol)

And stop teasing us with your pvp hints