26. Apr 2024, 23:47 Hallo Gast.
Willkommen Gast. Bitte einloggen oder registrieren. Haben Sie Ihre Aktivierungs E-Mail übersehen?

Einloggen mit Benutzername, Passwort und Sitzungslänge. Hierbei werden gemäß Datenschutzerklärung Benutzername und Passwort verschlüsselt für die gewählte Dauer in einem Cookie abgelegt.


Select Boards:
 
Language:
 


Autor Thema: General Balance Discussion  (Gelesen 79544 mal)

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #120 am: 25. Mär 2020, 14:05 »
Hello everyone,

I recently tried to get together with the best non edain team 1v1 players who play Edain on a daily basis. Smeargollum, Jojo, Seleukos, MaxPower, DSS, Luke and me (Fabian) elaborated on current edain gameplay and balance. There is much to love about 4.5, but in order to give constructive feedback we listed which gameplay elements we think are hurting the multiplayer experience the most at the moment.


About inflation & 300 resource farms

Making external farms more expensive and introducing inflation nerfed economic map control. This buffed clumping and turtling. In particular the extremely boring strategies of early outposts and hero spamming are a lot more viable now. Even if they are still not optimal, it takes a lot longer to punish them since your economic advantage is smaller now. And while it adds a little bit of decision making, now that just going for internal economy buildings is much more viable it removes a lot of action packed gameplay from the early game if there are less farms to fight over.


About heroes

Currently if one player gets a hero the game becomes a lot more boring. In straight up fights heroes already fight quite cost efficiently at level 1. Most heroes have more than 4000 health while only receiving 65% damage from infantry, giving them more than 6000 effective HP in melee fights. A good player will always retreat a low health hero from a fight and heal and within a minute they are healed back up. Thousands of damage points were tanked while the other player took permanent damage on their troops. A much bigger problem is the insane snowballing of hero leveling. Their good stats get better and the abilities they unlock add extreme strength and cost efficiency to any army. Therefore the correct response to an early hero or straight up hero spamming is avoiding the heroes, not fight and only attack once you are certain you can actually kill the heroes. Heroes are vulnerable alone and must not be lost so the player usually clumps everything together. So it is usually possible to get map control against heroes. Now you wait until your economic advantage is enough to crush your opponents death ball. Since inflation this takes a lot longer and is much more difficult. Overall it makes games more boring.


About healing (and towers) on the map

Any outpost with a heal makes it borderline impossible and extremely costly to conquer that position. The stronger towers compared to the megafix add to this problem. More importantly though, it means you need to avoid fighting your enemy in general. You cannot even fight your opponent for neighboring settlements, since your opponent can just heal back up after the skirmish while you took permanent damage. All you can do is getting more map control and wait around until you have such a massive army advantage that you still win. Inflation makes this a much longer process and outpost rushing got more viable. Outpost rushing might still not be optimal, but it takes a very long time to deal with and is very boring.
The rohan assembly point is even worse since it costs less for the almost the same utility while you can even place it in front of your opponents base. An intermediate fix could be reworking the rohan assembly point into an upgrade of the exile camp and reworking maps to feature outposts only at the corners like it was done on fords of isen or nurn.


About in-base healing & mass cavalry

Most experienced edain players are annoyed by the strength of mass cavalry that just yolos in your army and kills too much for the damage it receives. Especially sending out smaller groups of units is suppressed. It forces clumping. In-base wells exacerbate this problem since the mobile cavalry can quickly heal back up and get back on the field while infantry either takes permanent damage or is taken out of the game for a long time since going home and healing back up so many units takes a very long time, especially on big maps.


About horse Archers

Mobile archers always win map control because they always force clumping. With roughly equal forces foot archers fight horse archers efficiently. But if you split those foot archers into 2 or 3 groups to get more map control, the concentrated mobile force of horse archers will pick them off one by one very efficiently. On top of that, each group of archers also needs a lot of pikes to deal with rohan's cavalry. On top of that, horse archers and normal cavalry can quickly retreat home to heal back up, retroactively turning cost inefficient fights into favourable ones.


About sieges

a fundamental problem of sieges is that time is on the site of the attacker. Despite inflation, map control gives you twice the economy of your opponent. In a serious game the attacker benefits from dragging the game out for a very long time. Opponents to this argument say that you are also giving the defender time to get back up, or that your relative advantage cannot grow once you reach a maximum power level. However, with twice the economy you’re always outgrowing your opponent and this maximum power level is only reached once you have every eco & unit upgrade, most heroes and all outposts. These things take an eternity to get and until then you benefit from waiting. In reality, what gives your opponent a chance to come back is deleting an economy building, investing in a siege works and spending even more resources and command points into siege units while your opponent is investing everything into units, upgrades or heroes. Inflation didn’t change this dynamic, it just made the whole process slower.
If this is such a fundamental problem why don’t we see it every game? This has two reasons. Sometimes a player wins the early game by such a massive margin that they can invest in siege units while knowing they still have more than enough army power. Strictly speaking this is neither optimal nor safe but it doesn’t matter if a game is already that one-sided. The second and more common reason is that most experienced players of edain will leave the game since they know a very long, very boring and very pre-decided siege is about to follow. A common suggestion is making siege works cost less and siege units cost no CP but instead limit them by number to reduce their opportunity cost. This way a player that is ahead could start with the siege earlier without sacrificing too much of their army power. However this will not change the fact that map control makes it beneficial for the attacker to wait around because they are outgrowing their opponent.


In Summary

Generally it seems that under the current inflation system, map control is still what wins games, it just takes a lot longer now to take effect. Which is why sieges are still pre-decided, horse archers that guarantee map control are still game deciding while boring, annoying strategies that force waiting around like outpost rushing or hero spamming are still not optimal but take a very long time to deal with.


About losing through baserushing

You should only lose the game when your entire base is destroyed, especially on camp maps and especially for lorien the current system is very frustrating and exploitable.


Outpost Units

Most outpost units see very little use. Settlement units on the other hand (cirith ungol, rangers, lindons, dunlendings, and even beorn's) are used often because they have either a unique role or are higher tier units. The mordor outposts unlock heroic units and heroes and provide better orcs and it's needed to level sauron. The exile camp recruits extremely quickly and later unlocks higher tier units. If players build a mirkwood outpost it is usually for palace guards to get higher tier pikemen (besides the healing ofc). In theory Mirkwood does unlock useful heroes and mirkwood units are just better units but to most players the investment seems still too much. The dol amroth units have a unique role and are of a higher tier, but the advantage does not seem worth the cost of the outpost to most gondor players. The problem with most outpost units is that you need to invest more than a thousand recources just to recruit them but they don't add any new functionality to your army, aren't higher tier or more cost efficient.


About stuns and fear resistance

Stun & fear abilities should be more late game, some enemy factions have a very hard time getting fear resistance and without it they are too strong. Haldir's arrow and gamlings horn are their respective 2nd ability and they could be swapped with their respective 3rd ability


« Letzte Änderung: 26. Mär 2020, 01:36 von Big F »

Elendils Cousin 3. Grades

  • Administrator
  • Ringträger
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 5.697
  • German, Motherfucker! Do you speak it?
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #121 am: 25. Mär 2020, 15:41 »
All the miscellaneous suggestions should be going either into the respective faction balance or bug threads as they'll only clog this thread, but other than that nice post! I'd be interested if you have suggestions on how to tackle these issues - be that sieges, heroes, economy or the gameplay quality in general.

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #122 am: 25. Mär 2020, 20:00 »
hi elendil,
glad you like it.
good idea i will get all those smaller ideas into their respective faction categories.

I think i will get together with everyone again, think about our best ideas for solutions and then upload them in a 2nd post.

Max_Power

  • Edain Unterstützer
  • Thain des Auenlandes
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 32
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #123 am: 27. Mär 2020, 12:23 »
I agree with everything stated in Fabian's post. I would add that towers do too much damage for my liking, specially in external buildings such as Lindon tower, Dunedain camp, any level 3 farm, etc. I find it rewards poor army positioning, requires no skill and, unlike towers in camps or castles, is not easily counterable, because the health of those buildings is not low. Also makes lategame harassing very annoying. The building itself will go down, but just takes longer (a goodplayer will attack, take some arrow damage, retreat, and come again when the arrows are on cooldown). In case the defender sends some troops to defend the building, the arrows give him time. And my question is: why? I prefer when the harassment is more dynamic, and the defender needs to use scouting,  vision, and army position to defend from harassing, and if he fails to do so, then lose the building. Otherwise, we are again rewarding players for playing worse.

Seleukos I.

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Galadhrim
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 732
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #124 am: 27. Mär 2020, 12:51 »
I too agree with all main points of Fabian's post. And I also agree with Max :)

But in fact I wanted to suggest something else^^
Zitat
Making external farms more expensive and introducing inflation nerfed economic map control. This buffed clumping and turtling. In particular the extremely boring strategies of early outposts and hero spamming are a lot more viable now. Even if they are still not optimal, it takes a lot longer to punish them since your economic advantage is smaller now. And while it adds a little bit of decision making, now that just going for internal economy buildings is much more viable it removes a lot of action packed gameplay from the early game if there are less farms to fight over.

As Fabian said, farms costing 300 now makes mapcontrol way less attractive to get early on. In fact even several good players don't go for external farms at all within the first 5 to 10 min of the game, which is extremely boring to play/watch and, in my opinion, bad gameplay.
On the other hand many people argued that harassing in the lg has too little impact on the game because a) inflation is too strong atm and b) you can rebuild a Level 3 farm for just 300.

My idea would be to reduce the cost of farms back to 200 BUT increase the cost of farms with every level. Level one would cost 200, as I said, level two farms would cost 300 and level three farms would cost 400. This would only affect external farms, inbase farms are fine I think.
This would make the eg more dynamic because you can trade farms more easily (like in 441), but losing a level three farm in the lg would be more painfull and harassment could have more impact in the later game.
Ofc you could also make level three farms cost even 450 or 500, but I think 400 would be a good start.

What do you think? :P

best regardes,
Seleukos I.

Elendils Cousin 3. Grades

  • Administrator
  • Ringträger
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 5.697
  • German, Motherfucker! Do you speak it?
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #125 am: 27. Mär 2020, 13:27 »
I personally think both the Lindon Towers and the defensive ability of level 3 farms are in a good spot right now. Keep in mind that structure arrows deal increased damage to cavalry - if you want to take down a Lindon Tower, use your infantry; due to its low health, it goes down very fast if it's not defended. Same goes for level 3 farms, their ability is most potent against cavalry and much less useful against infantry. It only lasts for 20 seconds, so with cavalry you can ride to the next farm and force the tower to activate there, come back to the first farm and destroy it because the tower expired. infatry can usually just tank the damage. It is meant to be a small countermeasure against cavalry harassment: It doesn't stop the harassment by itself against a good player, but it gives you time to react. I think you would agree that cavalry overall is still incredibly powerful in 4.5, so I don't think this kills their role as a harassment unit in the LG by any means. There are other arguments for the strength of Lindon towers in regards to Imladris' difficulties with map control, but if you're interested in continuing that discussion, let's move that to the Imladris thread.


My idea would be to reduce the cost of farms back to 200 BUT increase the cost of farms with every level. Level one would cost 200, as I said, level two farms would cost 300 and level three farms would cost 400. This would only affect external farms, inbase farms are fine I think.
This would make the eg more dynamic because you can trade farms more easily (like in 441), but losing a level three farm in the lg would be more painfull and harassment could have more impact in the later game.
Ofc you could also make level three farms cost even 450 or 500, but I think 400 would be a good start.
I like this.

Halbarad

  • Edain Unterstützer
  • Soldat Gondors
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 1.685
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #126 am: 27. Mär 2020, 17:01 »
Increasing the farms cost with their level sounds good.
Arnor and Imladris Lindon towers shooting ability could be bound to Cirdan, since he already got an ability that makes the tower better.
Dunadan outpost could easy get fixed by giving the archers on the tower less shooting speed, maybe lowering their number. Although I do like the idea of many weak defensive archers, making the outpost stronger against spam and less effective against strong units. Especially since big amount of units like Mordor clumps are so effective against Imladris, while Dunadan are one way of Imladris for defending itself against such a high amount of troops.
Besides that, the tower upgrade could be mainly for increasing sight distance and giving the outpost a new defense ability, that increases the number of archers, even spawn some defense Dunadan with sword and spear but also stopping Ressource production and healing abilities for the outpost. Would be nice if the player you could able and disable the defensive mode instead of just giving the ability a timer like farms have it. However, the ability should also have a cooldown and the number of defensive Dunadan should increase with the number of tents. 

Such a mode could fit for Dale and Laketown as well.

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #127 am: 29. Mär 2020, 18:34 »
Edain 4.5 needs more action & speed. External farms need to cost 200 or even less since there is inflation now.

In other bfme mods troops just fall like flies and nobody cares. A constant flow of units is send on suicide missions just to kill some building near your opponent's base. This is basically the basis for constant action for 30 minutes until someone dies.

I like that edain is different, the life of your units matters.
The action in edain 4.4.1 megafix came from constant fighting over map control. This is much less the case in 4.5. Unit efficiency is much more important by comparison now. There is much more running around in clumps. What do you even do with your units if you can't harass and also can't force a fight because your opponent is equally fast as you?

Also the upgrade system and the mid and lategame economy feel extremely slow.

I would also like to see siege units being made much more accessible, since attacking someones base is the most natural way to force a fight in most other rts games. I know that some good players like Elendil like to siege early, but i also see it fail very often. Not just the tournament fubuky game comes to mind, but i also hosted a lorien v mordor game against luke and a erebor v isengard game against DSS ,where relatively early sieges failed, in my opinion because investing in siege units while your opponent invests everything into army is too much of a set back to overcome edain's high defenders advantage. Especially now with inflation.
« Letzte Änderung: 29. Mär 2020, 18:49 von Big F »

tolgayurdal

  • Gast
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #128 am: 29. Mär 2020, 19:10 »
There were a guy in moddb who i played with once (deleted the account later, don't even remember his name). He was Lothlorien and ambushed me all the time nearby trees where he is strong. Luckily i was Gondor, had to defense for a time but when i began to attack with toward guards and then cavalry to push him over, such a waste. And i sieged his castle following any ai castle/ camp/ outpost until saw everyone is destroyed after i start (because why not?). What is the suggestion so?

Try to reduce lorien archer units damage for hit and run gameplay multiple times than see how gondor siege units buffed against not only buildings but also nearby infantry.

However i can not play multiplayer for a long time unlike support Edain because i have other projects to work on (in real life, wind power plants in different city). So it is not a good time to invite me t3a or gameranger just for play (i nearly have not play v4.5), though try to follow the progress.

Note: I don't want to get in more personal facts to convience anyone, please let it end or i will.


Only True Witchking

  • Elbischer Pilger
  • **
  • Beiträge: 191
  • Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #129 am: 29. Mär 2020, 19:21 »
I don't think Lothlorien needs a nerf right now, as they are already the least played and most micro-intensive faction; and Gondor is already very strong, especially against Lorien, which is why I don' feel like they need a buff, certainly not to their siege units.

Signed,
The Only True Witch-king

PS: I hope I haven't misunderstood what you meant.
“In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face."

Elendils Cousin 3. Grades

  • Administrator
  • Ringträger
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 5.697
  • German, Motherfucker! Do you speak it?
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #130 am: 30. Mär 2020, 18:02 »
I would also like to see siege units being made much more accessible, since attacking someones base is the most natural way to force a fight in most other rts games. I know that some good players like Elendil like to siege early, but i also see it fail very often. Not just the tournament fubuky game comes to mind, but i also hosted a lorien v mordor game against luke and a erebor v isengard game against DSS ,where relatively early sieges failed, in my opinion because investing in siege units while your opponent invests everything into army is too much of a set back to overcome edain's high defenders advantage. Especially now with inflation.
We are planning on making this transition easier for the player by adjusting the buildcost (and cp cost) for siege weapons, siegeworks and outposts.

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #131 am: 31. Mär 2020, 13:46 »
that sounds great. This should give players more options for attack timings and should make the gameplay more dynamic. And  the time between winning a game and closing out the game will probably be reduced as well which is great

Specter

  • Hobbit
  • *
  • Beiträge: 1
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #132 am: 31. Mär 2020, 14:14 »
Foreword:
One thing is very important for me to mention in advance. I really like the universe of the RTS
It is very respectful for everyone who is programming and spending their free time in this project
without being compensated for it (by money).
The following points refer to the 1vs1 gameplay.
And I also fully understand that a game with so many different factions is very difficult
to balance. In addition, there is no professional balance team behind it.
I do not ask to see this as descriptive for the people who are currently responsible for balancing.

Part 1: Eco system and its consequences

Introduction (Eco system):
The game is currently very slow. In addition, map control hardly plays a role.
Both are the result of inflation, the increased cost of outside eco.
Another factor is the time it takes to research eco upgrades.
These take so much time AND cause so little extra income that it is not very relevant.
The reason why hardly any players take this upgrade if they are not already in the game well, it is not worth it.
To make matters worse, this does not affect all peoples equally hard, but I would like to go into this later.

Banner bearer / healing and its effects:
I have long considered whether I should call this point at all or if, then not under the aspect of Eco.
Probably even a taboo topic, since nothing has ever been changed in this regard, but I try anyway.

Banners are a mechanism that belongs to HDR, I understand that. however, it prevents "true harm".
Units fight, take damage and if they are not completely destroyed, they will be cured FREE,
no matter where they are as long as they are out of the battle. Above all, this makes KAV much stronger.
(probably many know what I mean and do not have to explain this further). The damage to the units is
So never "real damage" and gives the player an incredible advantage. This effect is intensified for fractions
that have a well that not all factions have.
Alternatively:
You do not automatically get banners with LVL 2, you have to buy them as a normal upgrade. Fountains are completely removed from the game.

Why does this point belong to Eco? Because you don't have to pay for this mechanism!

No other RTS has this mechanism and I believe for a very good reason. RTS and truer should always hurt
belong together.

Suggestion:
Troops with banners can only be healed in their own buildings (outside eco, inbase, outpost)
In addition, you should have to pay gold for each individual unit (as a button on the unit itself or on the
Buildings where they heal. So the chances (in this respect) are the same for all groups.


Economy:
Cost of outside eco: 150
Yield x2 for outside eco OR double tick speed
Research time for Eco 3x! so quickly, maybe even lower costs
Increase the effect of the eco upgrade: (The% number is very likely to be tested in many games)
Eco upgrades should be made equally accessible to all factions.
That means the same cost for the building, the same conditions for researching the upgrade.

Result: dynamic game, map control becomes more relevant

I hope for many contributions, opinions and above all that this proposal will be tested + feedback after the tests.
There is still a lot of room for improvement (in my opinion). Should this amount be taken seriously /
tested and feedback came after the test, I would have noticed even more: Spellbook, hero skills etc.

Kind regards
Specter

Aiphaton

  • Thain des Auenlandes
  • *
  • Beiträge: 37
  • Don't look back. You're not going that way.
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #133 am: 31. Mär 2020, 14:30 »
Hello Together,

I‘d like to add something about the Lindon-Towers and the level three defense.

Basically I would just lower the range of those external archers. The damage is okay, but the range is quite high. Especially on small maps (e.g. Westfold) you often want to help your army with Cav. However if there are Towers (which are a good option to boost defense because of the inflation issue we‘ve heard about) units often die already underway due to the range.

I‘d personally like to see a decrease on range of those towers in order to prevent a loss of cav just by mistake because you came to close to a tower.

Seleukos idea to decrease costs of outside eco is very good in my opinion.
I‘d also like to see an increase of costs for higher level farms.

Generally I’d like to see inflation being a little weakened. Right now it feels a little to strong and often forces long matches (as seen in the Battlezone cup).

Smeargollum

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Gesandter der Freien Völker
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 369
  • #teamfish
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #134 am: 31. Mär 2020, 15:08 »
Hello everyone!
First of all I agree with most of the points made by the other players writing above.
I think everyone of the multiplayer community agrees that the gameplay is a bit too slow due to the strong inflation and other things that reward campy gameplay (as Fabian mentioned a few days past).
Outside farms need to be cheaper at level one, but I would like to see that they cost more when they level up as Seleukos suggested.
Furthermore, is the inflation too strong so that map control is not that relevant as before but it missed it purpose to make comebacks possible, in my opinion.
I also agree that wells are too strong but I don't think that you have to remove them completely from the game; I think it would be enough if they would get an active ability with cooldown or something similar (as suggested by kmogon in the "well-topic"). And I like the suggestion of Specter that units don't get a banner carrier as soon as they get to level two. That way you would have to buy it in order to regenerate your units.

About the towers:
I am not sure if they are a big problem but if they get nerfed, I would like it more to just nerf their range instead of their damage. So, they would be still really good in fights directly next to them but they couldn’t just snipe everything a long way off.

Best regards
Smeargollum


"What if the real balance was the friends we made along the way?"