[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] Discussion and Feedback

Inner Resource Buildings Producing More Than Outer Ones

<< < (2/3) > >>

Lord of Mordor:
So do you regularly play sieges in the current version and the previous? Or do you also find that one player usually surrenders before a siege even takes place? That's a problem we really want to fix, and it's been reported by many players (the economy is not the only problem with the siege, but it's a major factor that a player inside his fortress is already so massively outgunned that he has zero hope of ever coming back anyway).

Increasing the upgrades' effects on inner farms could be another factor to consider. The trouble here is that the upgrade system is already extremely complex in the codes and we have a limited number of different upgrades we can in the game. We could change the effects of the upgrades without defining new ones (because the effect is defined in the structure, not the upgrade), but they'd also have to cost the same for external and internal ones. We couldn't define one cheap price for external upgrades and a more expensive one for the stronger internal upgrades. That would make it a viable strategy to build mainly internal economy structures from the start and upgrade them for cheap while neglecting external structures, which would be problematic in my opinion.

Elite KryPtik:
Well whenever I'm a faction of Good and losing I defend to the last gasp, and I have come back in these situations too. Most people do leave when they are under siege though, its quite frustrating. It just comes down to people not having much time to play games and wanting to get into a game where they have better chances of winning. I think to encourage players to try and defend in a siege that you need to give them something useful for a siege situation.

A couple of ideas off the top of my head would be to add more defensive wall plots, or maybe make plots for catapults and towers separate so that players could get both, decrease the cost of the Gondor Stoneworker and its upgrades, give the Dwarves some kind of upgrades to their castle walls, give Rohan wall onagers, and give units on the wall some kind of an armor bonus against ranged and siege attacks. Archers on the wall get shredded by other archers and catapults, except for Gondor's Morthond Archers, because of their formation. I'm sure most of these ideas would probably be pretty unbalanced for Evil factions, who have no walls, but there must be some way to make defending in a siege fun without killing the evil factions chances.

Ultimately, I don't think changing the economy structures is going to make people want to try and endure a siege, all it will do is unbalance the game IMO. It should be changed back, the old system worked good.

Also, in regards to my previous idea, you could make the outer farms a different structure technically in the code, but identical in terms of appearance, function and health, allowing them to get different upgrades. This would allow the same upgrade for a cheaper cost.

Sir_Stig:
For evil siege, could it be as simple as giving them default leadership while in/near their own base? That would tend to make up for the lack of walls, although it might be too strong, I think testing would be needed to see.

Elite KryPtik:
I think that would be a bit much, evil isn't really supposed to defend anyways, their supposed to attack and be aggressive.

Draco100000:

--- Zitat von: Lord of Mordor am  5. Aug 2015, 18:00 ---

Im still a bit torn on how to balance all these factors: Creating a progression from fighting for settlements to fighting for castles, making sure that settlements and map control are important, and making sieges matter. One idea was that internal structures cost 500 and produce 36, while external ones cost 250 and produce 24. That way, external ones would be more cost-efficient and you couldn't even build too many internal ones from the start, but in the lategame you could have a powerful economy inside the fortress that the enemy has to target to bring you down.

Another possible idea (which could work together with the first, but wouldn't have to) is to bring back the inflation mechanic, which means that resource structures produce slightly less the more you have of them. That way, we could slightly limit how much one player can pull ahead while still allowing them to gain an advantage over the opponent - you'd just have, say, twice as many resources instead of three times as much.

--- Ende Zitat ---
You cant prevent the win of a map controlled faction, because camping is the same as defeated. Who have the map will win, because of more resources and more units, than the camper player. Also putting the cost of inside farm in 500 will provoque that Dwarves and Isengard will loose all chances to make a good early, and will give Gondor and specialy rohan an enormous advantage. Why? Well Rohan can survive easily with outside farms spamming pèasants and getting camps to recruit westfold heavy units.

Any faction will have chance agaisnt Rohan, probably only Gondor because of free troops thx to signalfires, but if rohan destroy this signal fires the match will be for Rohan. Well You will provoque early camping of Isengard and dwarves who need more than any other thing inside farms. to get a good production and rise their economy, allowing them to get troops and  have chance to fight against faction like rohan or Mordor, who can spam lot of troops without effort.

So the gameplay will change a lot, if you decide to implement this prices, you will make slower the early game, and the map control will be more and more important. More important than now, so lategame and sieges wont come, and you cant prevent the rise of a faction who controll the map, sieges are cool, but is fair that a player who have winned the map control have to be defeated thx to a unbeitable dwarven or gondor defense?

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[#] Nächste Seite

[*] Vorherige Sete