[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] General Suggestions
General Balance Discussion
Mogat:
Very nice post Goodfella, finally someone breaks down the general opinion of the Multiplayer about towers :)
I can support every point of yours, especially the ugly catapult battles (they don't really leave a chance for the defender, but are a way to stretch the game up to 20 minutes longer).
For the sceptics here a perfect illustration of that point. Just watch the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ilacLvDQw&t=1s
Sieging a tower-base is almost impossible without siege. Seeing someone trying it amuses me every time. Towers are my biggest concern in 4.x atm., changing it would improove multiplayer experience by a lot!
#onlygoodwithtowers
Goodfella:
Hi Elessar
Thanks for your reply.
Yes I'm pretty sure the Edain team is looking to nerf towers, i only hope that this post will outline (what i see as) one of the big problems in 4.4.1 - and how it could be improved in future patches! Basicaly, I just hope they are nerfed enough.
--- Zitat von: ElessarTelcontar am 1. Aug 2017, 02:04 ---
I think if they delete the towers it would be funny but not a joy for us.
--- Ende Zitat ---
Yeah, I agree we definitely need towers for defending against unexpected attacks on base etc.
--- Zitat von: ElessarTelcontar am 1. Aug 2017, 02:04 ---
If there is one thing you can exploit it would be a ballista.
--- Ende Zitat ---
Honestly, I kinda agree with this too, I think the siege does too much damage to units and it further encourages catapult battles. However, i think towers can be exploited too (also leading to catapult battles)
--- Zitat von: ElessarTelcontar am 1. Aug 2017, 02:04 ---
Actually there is no need to siege weapons to destroy a outpost which has three upgraded towers
--- Ende Zitat ---
Ok, NOW we disagree :) In the vast majority of cases you would 100% need siege in that situation - at least that is what i have experienced when playing online. Let's say (for a generic example), you attack that outpost with a generic (let's say) mid-game army, like gondor soldiers, a few pikes and maybe a hero.
What happens to your army in that situation with no siege? The fire rate of an upgraded tower is very high and will kill a unit in (let's say) 1-3 hits. Now times that by 3 and that's the damage output of the towers. The damage output of the soldiers to the towers is quite minimal and so it will take quite a while for the towers to be destroyed. All the time you're being pelted with 3 lots of high damage arrows at a very high fire rate.
Even if you manage to destroy the outpost (without siege) before your enemy comes to its defence you will have lost a lot of your army and your enemy will have lost nothing. Your enemy invested a lot in their outpost and you decided to invest your money in your army, but now a lot of your army is dead and your enemy can work to gain map control with a temporarily superior force. But ok, in this situation you may still come off better and the sacrifice you made to kill the expensive outpost would be worthwhile.
So there's no problem, right? But wait, what if your opponent came back to defend his outpost (the buildings have high health so he will probably make it back in time), then you will have to deal with not only the damage output of the towers but also the damage output of your enemies army. Now imagine that your enemy REBUILDS his towers that are destroyed! You'll have to hit the citadel first to stop this! But then your not getting rid of tower damage output AND the citadel has even more health AND your being attacked by your enemies army!
Then imagine that your enemy is smart. He has built cavalry and instead of letting the towers hit any-old-thing, they hit your pikes! You will have 3-4 pikes if you're smart, to defend against the cav. The towers can kill these few battalions quickly then the rest of your army is doomed to die to a cavalry charge (including any heroes you've got - even if you decided to go upgrades instead, you'll still lose your upgraded swords to cav.)
So no, you need At least a ram or two, so you can quickly destroy your enemies towers/citadel. And you need to protect those rams with pikes, but your enemy can still come over with his army and deal huge amounts of damage to you and aim for your rams, all the while your pikes (or whatever else) are being hit with high damage towers.
For the most part I therefore only attack outposts with catapults once they have enough towers to defend. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule:
1. If my enemy is no where near his outpost and i feel i have tanky enough units (e.g. tower guards) i will often rush his outpost.
2. If i am Imladris i sometimes use all my damage and speed buffs simultaneously to rush an outpost (because the damage output of my soldiers is so high in this situation the towers are not so bad) but of course, i can now no longer use all these buffs to fight my enemies army :(
3. If i am mordor, i generally don't care much about towers (apart from vs my trolls) because who cares if you lose a hundred free units?
If, however, we are talking about sieging a base (and not an outpost) I can think of no situation in which towers are not a concern - once the enemy has filled his base full of towers.
Sometimes I attack a base before catapults, for example if i have destroyed my enemy in under 10mins and he not built towers yet, then i will rush into the base (maybe with a ram) and try and end it quick.
Other than that, trying to siege a base with units when facing 6+ towers is not an option. The only option in that situation are catapults. This, i have learnt from playing against some of the best (and most annoying :p) players online in 1v1 - I'm looking at YOU Dmitry!
--- Zitat von: ElessarTelcontar am 1. Aug 2017, 02:04 ---
In addition siege weapons are not for shooting each other it would be very funny and ridiculous scene watching them trying to shoot each other. It is never needed to carry the situation into that. For me if you want to use your siege weapon you should learn how to defend them.
--- Ende Zitat ---
Unfortunately, i disagree with this too :/
I have seen first hand this very situation in my own games, and countless other times watching games of others play. It is a very real feature of edain atm.
Let me ask you a question: What do you do when your enemy is sitting in a base full of towers (which you cannot approach with units) and he realises your only hope is to break through with catapults?
If your opponent is smart and he wants the draw/ win he will focus all his energies on targeting your catapults. He can do this is a number of ways, but the most common is to build catapults of his own (on the walls, or otherwise) and target your catapults with his.
To be clear what i call 'catapult battles' are not only catapult vs catapult but a battle that focuses all the energies on killing catapults. The attacker will defend his own and the defender will try kill his enemy's catapults. This can be done with cavalry charges, summons or (worst of all) denethor!
If you think that this feature does not exist Please watch these videos:
The first (and i think the best) example of this ugly, ugly play style comes from a game that Elite KryPtik played with Haman. KryPtik played well and had-the-game-won at around the 30 min mark. The siege begins at around 42:00. Skip to that point and watch the catapult battle begin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkN8aIN2pqM&list=PL7-qpJu_KnvgFYqH1Kc-0a-yymsmbXcOZ&index=17
Also, this game (which mogat also shared), not as extreme as kryptik's game but has the same features nonetheless. Skip to around the 22:00 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ilacLvDQw&t=1s
Finaly a game between two players who would (i'm guessing :p) consider themselves about mid-level players: Ruuddevil and The Silver Elf, around 36:00 the siege begins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt8O3yWZSIE
That final game actually ended in a stalemate :( ^
Now, another question: How do you defend against this if your enemy really wants to play this way? The only viable thing to do is out-spam your enemies catapults. Kryptik discovered this and won his game. Ruuddevil did not and called it a draw. Django had the courtesy of surrendering rather than have the game last another 20 mins.
In every one of these situations, if the towers did less damage to units there would have been an opportunity to attack the base with units, to deal damage from multiple different directions - making it much harder for the defender to counter.
We need to be able to destroy a castle base by using a ram to get through the gate then storming the keep with a superior army - with the support of catapults if needs be!
--- Zitat von: ElessarTelcontar am 1. Aug 2017, 02:04 ---
And there is nothing easier to defender when one has already spent his high amounts of money to build an outpost, build towers and upgrade them.
--- Ende Zitat ---
This I don't understand: the outposts don't sit in catapult-range of castles, you can't siege if you are at your outpost. so do both players just sit at their outpost/base with catapults, defended by towers and wait till one person is so bored they quit? Sorry if i sound a little sarcastic, I just don't understand this point :)
--- Zitat von: ElessarTelcontar am 1. Aug 2017, 02:04 ---
You should actually think about "opportunity cost". If you want to take an outpost first you should send your troops there first it requires to sacrificing your economy by giving up the opportunity to extending your area and it requires to kill possible creeps or trolls nearby.
--- Ende Zitat ---
Now we are in agreement again (yay!). Even though i consider towers OP, i still don't go for early outposts. The risks are too high and the benefits too little.
For example, why build 3 towers on an outpost anyway? it will give you no benefit other than the minimal resource production of the citadel. However, problems do arise with things like the dunedain outpost for imla, where you can have strong towers without sacrificing outpost-usefulness - same goes for angmar citadel tower upgrade.
--- Zitat von: ElessarTelcontar am 1. Aug 2017, 02:04 ---And the game is not about taking outposts and destroying the towers. You should first weaken the opponent's economy by taking economic structures and then you can deal with that outpost. Outpost and towers are static structures that they are not meaningful by themselves. They need opponents to do their job if you don't want to overtake them or to control the area you should not go near them at the beginning of the game once one took 'em.
--- Ende Zitat ---
100% yes! This is exactly what i do when faced with outposts, focus all my efforts on gaining outside economy. But once you do that there is still the arduous chore of destroying the outpost with catapults whilst your enemy targets yours, it's not impossible but it's boring and frustrating to be forced to play in this strange way.
Also, like i mentioned many outposts are not neutral, some are extremely good - take for example mirkwood, if you can get that up and upgraded with tower expansions it is so difficult to destroy. Your enemy gains access to 2 excellent heroes, a solid foothold on the map, excellent units such as the mega-powerful elk riders etc. What's more, all the money you invest trying to destroy mirkwood with siege, reduces the relative cost of your enemy's outpost. When I see my enemy go for mirkwood in a 1v1 i instantly cancel everything that i am doing and rush to attack it, targeting first the palace guard building that grants the tower upgrade. If my enemy has a superior army and i can't destroy it - it is almost always gg for me.
WOW! That was a lot of text! Thanks to anyone who read the whole thing (i'll post a condensed version for everyone else :p)
In summary:
Catapult battles are real (and real annoying!), as seen in the videos. In fact, they are often necessary due to the power of towers.
Towers are NOT impossible to beat. Nor (in many cases) are they the CORRECT DECISION, in fact i think they are often a MISTAKE! But dealing with them is frustrating, ugly and (worse of all) Not interesting!!!
IMO, I can sacrifice some things being 'not fun' in the game or 'frustrating', just as long as they are interesting and you can find a way to do it better in the next game (thereby making it more fun next time), i fear this is not the case for catapult battles atm.
Finally, I Know the team is re-balancing towers and siege in general. I am super happy and grateful about this!
The aim of this post is to clarify my own view (and the view of many other good online players) about how towers and sieging currently functions in 4.4.1 and how it can be improved in 4.5.
It may not change anything about 4.5, the edain team may already be incorporating all these changes as we speak.
But it might, at least, convince people that there is an issue in sieging and that it is a good idea to re-balance it. As well as convince people that towers are too strong atm.
If it does convince the team to change the direction of siege in anyway that will be a good thing imo, because it will improve the experience of the mod.
And that, after all, is what we all want!
Thanks for reading :)
Goodfella:
Ok, now the condensed version :p
1. Towers do so much damage to units, they often force 'catapult battles'
2. Catapult battles are real! They are quite common actually, and are often forced upon the attacker.
I define a catapult battle as 'a battle in which the primary focus is destroying the enemy's - or defending your own - catapults'. Catapults can be targeted through powers, cavalry charges, heroes (e.g. denethor) or other catapults.
Here is some evidence that they exist:
The best example imo: Kryptik Vs Haman. Kryptik is completely winning but must spam catapults to destroy Haman's base. Skip to 42:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkN8aIN2pqM&index=17&list=PL7-qpJu_KnvgFYqH1Kc-0a-yymsmbXcOZ
A game i observed between ErenionF and Django. ErenionF is completely winning, Django makes ballistas in his base, defended by towers. Django courteously surrenders to avoid a boring 20 min siege. Skip to 22:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ilacLvDQw&t=1s
The all-mighty Ruddevil plays Vs The silver elf, the match reaches a stalemate due to the power of denethor and the upgraded gondor base in catapult-battles. Ruud could have won, he needed to spam tf out of catapults (but where's the fun in that!). Skip to 36:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt8O3yWZSIE
Building towers is not a sure-way to win a game. In fact it is often a mistake imo! It just often forces the game down the path of catapult battling (and spamming).
Nerfing the damage of towers would allow units to get into, or near the enemy base, allowing for attacks from multiple directions, leading to more dynamic sieging that is harder for the defender to nullify.
I Know the team is re-balancing towers and siege in general. I am super happy and grateful about this!
The aim of this post to clarify my own view (and the view of many other good online players) about how towers and sieging currently functions in 4.4.1 and how it can be improved in 4.5.
It may not change anything about 4.5, the edain team may already be incorporating all these changes as we speak.
But it might, at least, convince people that there is an issue in sieging and that it is a good idea to re-balance it. As well as convince people that towers are too strong atm.
If it does convince the team to change the direction of siege in anyway that will be a good thing imo, because it will improve the experience of the mod.
And that, after all, is what we all want!
Thanks for reading :)
Julio229:
I support all of Goodfella's points about the towers, I have been a witness to my full upgraded Imladris army falling to a Castle full of towers, heroes included (and in the Legendary Heroes mode), and I always lose a lot of troops to them, even on camp maps (which I play the most in to avoid castles full of towers), so I always need to make Siege (which I almost never make until the attack on the enemy's base) and target the towers first so my army can survive and not get obliterated.
As the Team is working on that, I hope that in the next patch (when I think I'll start playing Online), they are less of an army-killer!
ElessarTelcontar:
Hello again Goodfella,
First we should clarify what are we talking about. It is an outpost or a camp. Each of them has completely different scenario against siege weapons. So If we are talking about outposts if one in mid-game have an outpost with three upgraded towers then in the background one should have to spend money on unlock to "upgrade(s)" because one can't upgrade the arrows at the beginning, spend money on first troops to take the outpost, spend money on an outpost, spend money to towers and spend money to upgrade them. So if you managed to destroy that outpost there is no big chance to one take it again an destroy your army. If you count that one's expenses to achieve that you will understand what it costs to the one who wants to build a strong outpost. So in that situation (mid-game) one would not be able to have enough amount of army to supply for overtake the outpost again. To contrary if you achieve to destroy it you already give the one a huge economical and strategical hit because one's money becomes being spent on nothing.
If we are talking about camps then as I said before if you already let someone take a camp and build 6+ towers on it you should have played wrong. It is already not a normal or advantageous thing to have more then one tower in the main building plots in the starting camp. I don't build towers in the beginning camp of mine.
And siege weapons against towers thing. I said that you don't need to have siege weapons to take an outpost with upgraded towers but of course you can make them an overtake the outpost easily for example ballistas, they can shoot the towers at a distance the towers can not even touch them. So if you want to win a game you should not go near a fully upgraded outpost with your army in the mid-game phase but you can use siege weapons an wait the opponent comes to your siege weapons so you can win that hand against your opponents with a larger army you have because the opponent would not be able to have a larger army then yours. As I said before you should destroy every other thing to come to that outpost.
Siege weapon fight thing. Okay. It is not a necessary or natural thing just because there are players who make it. I looked at the videos briefly there are some mistakes at the beginning or middle of the game. And I realised that these are mainly occurs in castle maps and of course you should have siege weapons to destroy the gate and to pass the defence . They should not be happen on normal settlements. Actually it is possible to generate such a scene with just one of the player's mistake. It is often the attacker's mistake to participate such a battle. In Ruuddevil and The Silver Elf's game why he wait with that army in front of the castle before his siege weapons destroy gate? And once the gate are destroyed he could push all of his forces inside to wound his opponent. He just waited being afraid to lose his army and as far as I seen he didn't have proper archers to be effective at distace. LOL.[/color]
--- Zitat ---This I don't understand: the outposts don't sit in catapult-range of castles, you can't siege if you are at your outpost. so do both players just sit at their outpost/base with catapults, defended by towers and wait till one person is so bored they quit? Sorry if i sound a little sarcastic, I just don't understand this point
--- Ende Zitat ---
Let me clarify, I was talking about outposts not camps or castles. And if one just sits at one's outposts camps or whatever, one can't win the game. It is just meaningless. One who is a good player just doesn't do that. As I said before, it is just mistakes of both sides to carry the situation to a siege war. The sole purpose of this game is winning and to surrender is a fact of the war. End of story.
Finally,
I think that fire rate or damage of the towers can be discussed but me and my friends think that health points of towers will be right if they will not be decreased too much.
And what would you think if allies can equip each others towers. You didn't say your opininon about it. I would like to see some comments.
Thanks for everyone who contribute to that discussion. And it is good to see people here discuss in a qualitative way also thanks for that.
I also have a topic discussed with Gnomi included that tower issue. May be it is helpful and beneficial to check here also.
--- Zitat --- https://modding-union.com/index.php/topic,34820.0.html
--- Ende Zitat ---
Have a nice weekend. Do not forget to comment.
Peace.
Navigation
[0] Themen-Index
[#] Nächste Seite
[*] Vorherige Sete
Zur normalen Ansicht wechseln