19. Apr 2024, 10:50 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 78891 mal)

FG15

  • Administrator
  • Ringträger
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 5.274
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #135 am: 31. Mär 2020, 15:13 »
Suggestion:
Troops with banners can only be healed in their own buildings (outside eco, inbase, outpost)
What exactly do you mean by that? But in general it is impossible to target effects only at units with a banner carrier.


Also concerning banner carriers: Banner carriers have to be bound to a level. It has not to be level 2, but there has be a level at which they automatically appear or else players won't be able to purchase them with an upgrade either.

Nicipiz

  • Hobbit
  • *
  • Beiträge: 1
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #136 am: 31. Mär 2020, 15:45 »
Hello everyone,
first of all I agree to most of the proposed changes.

Inflation System:
In my opinion, inflation is too high at the moment and a player who has gained the map advantage should be rewarded. Of course there should also be a comeback possibility, but in my opinion this is guaranteed by the current system of commander points. Furthermore the player with map control has to besiege the inferior player and use a lot of resources for this and should not have any disadvantage.

External Farms:
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 the idea that harassment would be more more viable in the early and the more punishing in the lg. Furthermore, this would also make the eg more dynamic, because after the start you have more resources for troops, because the external farms cost less.

Regards
Nicipiz

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #137 am: 10. Apr 2020, 14:53 »
A while back I made a somewhat larger post that summarized what most edain pvp 1v1 players think about the current gameplay of edain 4.5.
Now I want to present our ideas on what could be some solutions to the addressed issues.

Economy

The inflation can stay as strong as it is, but outside farms should cost at maximum 200 and the general income could be increased substantially.

Inflation is a good mechanic to curb edain's very strong snowballing. However, together with farms costing 300, it takes forever to afford anything and the gameplay is too slow. Increasing the income of economy buildings would not just speed up the gameplay again, it would also enable more strategies because you can afford producing units from 3,4,5 different military buildings and don't have to fill your base with 90% economy buildings. If this makes it too difficult to finish off a player that has lost all map control becauses the base still produces 2k resources a minute, then the defenders advantage should be decreased and siege units should become more potent.

Fighting over every single farm on the map was what Edain's early and mid game was all about. With outside farms costing 50% more than in 4.4.1 many players opt to just fill their base with economic structures. It is often not worth it to build a farm in a risky location. That might sound like it adds some decision making, but the less farms are taken on the map the less points of interest there are, the less reasons there are to fight over positions, the less opportunities think about tactics and maneuvers to conquer more positions. There is too much just running around in big clumps and doing nothing in the early and mid game because there is nothing to do besides some creeping.

Sieges
I think the only way to make sieges interesting is making siege units so accessible that a player that has a temporary military advantage but might be economically behind (less map control) can quickly start a siege and do some lasting damage. It doesn't even have to end the game. Destroying a barracks and and 2 eco buildings can be enough. The whole siege maneuver has to happen before the defending player with more map control inevitably mustered a stronger army. Sieges where the attackers has 100% map control will and should never have a real comeback potential unless the attacker does some major mistakes.

Heroes
Hero's CP cost needs to be reflective of their power level. If you have 1300 out 1500 cp, there is simply no alternative, nothing could make your army stronger than spamming out all heroes at this point. If you don't do this but your opponent does, you lose the fight. It would make balancing heroes substantially easier if their CP cost was in line with other units.
Just as a comparison, the competitively played rotwk 2.02 has tier 3 heroes cost 100 out of 1000 cp points. In edain 4.4.1 they cost 30 out of 1800 cp points, 4.5 improved this but needs to go much further. 3000 resource heroes should cost 120 or even 150 command points. Even then they will still be the most Cp efficient units in the game.
Another important idea is to make heroes not improve their stats when leveling. Not just will a level 5 support hero win against a level 1 hero killer but if your opponent hero spammed early and has their heroes on level 4 already, there is no way to ever beat them with your own heroes or even keep your own heroes alive.
Another but more radical idea to curb hero's late game snowballing is making them respawn at level 1 when they die.
I would also like to see heroes doing no more than 100% damage against heroes so that the general army strength is more relevant than just who spammed out more heroes when it comes to hero battles and keeping your heroes alive.

Healing & towers
I already described why healing, especially healing near important positions is very toxic to fun gameplay. A popular solution was to make healing sources only heal existing units, but not replenish the battalions, only banner carriers should have this ability. This could be a sufficient nerf. Also the rohan assembly point is way to strong and annoying. It should be moved to the exile camp or taken out.
Also, towers outside of your base should see a significant range reduction, enough for self defense, but no longer enough to zone out the enemy.

Cavalry & Pikes

Cavalry is too oppressive. It is simply not viable to split your forces once a larger force of cavalry is on the field. Even sending out just individual pike battalions is not viable since 4 battalions of mobile cavalry will easily kill it and, if necessary, they just heal back up in the base. If healing gets nerfed like described above, the problem might be reduced. Another big problem is that pikes don't do 360° trample revenge. Cavalry gets 0 damage when trampling pikes from behind. This makes a combination of infantry + cavalry way too strong to hunt down armies, the cavalry can kill everything if charging in from behind and if the pikes turn around to face the cavalry the chasing infantry will kill the pikemen.

Outposts
Players get the dunedain camp, dale and laketown for their healing, their towers and ,in 4.4.1, their income. All of which should be nerfed as I described above. I would like to see outposts become a lot cheaper when it comes to making outpost unique units or preparing a siege but a lot more expensive when it comes to turtlely and boring tower-heal-income aspects. The mordor outposts and the exile camp are fine. But dale, laketown, the dunedain camp, dol amroth and ered mithrin could be reworked in this regard. Even better but more difficult would be to give outpost units more unique aspects that complement your normal army, players a willing to invest a lot of recources to get rohan captains, improved orcs, castellans or mirkwood units.
« Letzte Änderung: 10. Apr 2020, 14:57 von Big F »

Vin55

  • Edain Betatester
  • Gastwirt zu Bree
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 142
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #138 am: 10. Apr 2020, 15:09 »
Some interesting aspects there :) to work with. Altough I think cp wise heroes are ok just increase the amount of money like in Bfme2 for some Heroes. Otherwise great comment. Really like the idea about pikes and healing points and outsdie eco.

Yours kindly,

Vin55

Elendils Cousin 3. Grades

  • Administrator
  • Ringträger
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 5.696
  • German, Motherfucker! Do you speak it?
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #139 am: 11. Apr 2020, 15:25 »
Another big problem is that pikes don't do 360° trample revenge. Cavalry gets 0 damage when trampling pikes from behind. This makes a combination of infantry + cavalry way too strong to hunt down armies, the cavalry can kill everything if charging in from behind and if the pikes turn around to face the cavalry the chasing infantry will kill the pikemen.

This is indeed very frustrating, especially when the engine and the delay decide that the enemy was somehow flanking your pikes when they actually just charged straight into them. The only solution to this - that I know of - is to make pikes not flankable period. They already have this trait in the porcupine formation, but that has other drawbacks. I'm currently of the opinion that a situation where pikes can under no circumstance suffer flanking damage (so no flanking damage from swords, archers, other pikes... either) is still preferable to the current one, but I'd be interested what you think of this.

Smeargollum

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Gesandter der Freien Völker
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 369
  • #teamfish
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #140 am: 11. Apr 2020, 15:58 »
I can't say much to that what Fabian wrote because I pretty much agree with everything he said and suggested but I just want to add my voice to his :D
And I think that it would be way better if pikes can't get flanking damage by anything in order to help out the engine a bit. So that would probaly be the best solution  ;)

Regards, Smeargollum


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

Spartacus_

  • Gastwirt zu Bree
  • **
  • Beiträge: 145
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #141 am: 11. Apr 2020, 16:21 »
tbf, you can remove the flank damage to everything, since the engine is not precise .
Join the Edain Challenge here : https://discord.gg/jvMVe4Y


dgsgomes

  • Pförtner von Bree
  • *
  • Beiträge: 75
  • "If by my life or death I can protect you, I will"
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #142 am: 12. Apr 2020, 12:49 »
I'm also 100% in favour of removing flank damage to pikes.

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #143 am: 15. Apr 2020, 23:57 »
An approach to reduce clumping armies into a single battalion size.

The engine allows and incentivises players to clump all their battalions together as much as possible. I am not talking about the deathball meta where people don'T split up their army for map control, that is another issue with other origins (outside eco). I am talking about unit formations when two armies engage. Having 10+ orc battalions clumped into one battalion size minimizes their attackable surface area while maximising the damage output at their frontal point.
Not just the frame rate suffers from this, but the gameplay as well. Microing would be much more fun if it was about establishing concave formations or using the terrain instead of just spamming move commands to clump everything together. It would making microing cavalry and pikes and archers more interesting and dynamic, but more to cavalry below.

My solution to this problem would be to give every faction a reliable source of small AoE damage, just a little bit smaller than 1 battalion size.
But isn't cavalry AoE damage?
No! cavalry makes you clump as much as possible, true AoE makes you spread out as much as possible.

Those toxic clumps, especially once they are archer clumps, are very punishing to engage into, especially with cavalry. But if players know their opponents have an AoE spell with the diameter of approximately 1 battalion size, players will make sure to de-clump their army all the time.

But isn't cavalry so strong that you will totally die if you don't clump everything on top of each other? well yes, yes it is. Cavalry already needs to be reworked and when players can't clump their foot army on top of each other anymore the damage of cavalry tramples needs to be reduced even more.

This reliable source of small aoe damage could come from units, heroes or most probably the spellbook. Lorien's arrow volley would only need a slight adjustment to function as this de-clumping threat. It would need to have a smaller radius but do more damage. Right now, especially when off host, it is just unavoidably, moderately damaging your entire army no matter what. With higher damage but a smaller radius, it would only kill 1 battalion if you have a nice spread out army formation but kill 15 battalions if you clump everything into one battalion size.


This AoE damage could be made thematically very consistent with each faction's aesthetic. Rohan's yolo cavalry could be roworked to be more like eomer's lvl 10, just working for a much smaller radius. Gondor's barrage could be slightly adjusted. I am sure every faction has some things that could be reworked into this kind of small but potent AoE damage
« Letzte Änderung: 16. Apr 2020, 03:13 von Big F »

Vin55

  • Edain Betatester
  • Gastwirt zu Bree
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 142
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #144 am: 16. Apr 2020, 00:05 »
Sounds very nice :)

Yours kindly,

Vin55

Halbarad

  • Edain Unterstützer
  • Soldat Gondors
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 1.685
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #145 am: 17. Apr 2020, 15:15 »
Sounds interesting and I would be open minded for your suggestions, still I think you have to keep some things in mind
1. We already have many counters to this: Catapults already punish this, every faction has heroes that do that too (Galadriel, Necromancer, Gandalf, Saruman, Witchking/Zaphragor, Eomer, Dain and even Merry, Pippin, Drauglin, Nori at level 10) and as you said there are already some spells like arrow volley, stone volley, Gandalf, ... and also units (Imladris Loremasters, Sorcerers of Angmar, Monsters, ...)
2. Players are forced right now to clumb their units on fortress walls, since units don't split up automatically up there. Also defending your fortress would be much more difficult, since you don't have that much space to run away from such attacks as the enemy does. So defending players would suffer more by these changes and sieges could become more frustrating to defend.
3. I don't like your suggestion for a changed arrow volley. In fact I don't even think that it would help that much against clump, since the players units would have less way to go to run away from it - so the clump just have to move a bit fore- or backward. I do like it the way it is right now, killing Mordor orcs but not Gondor infantry. The damage it gives right now is still punishing the player (and doesn't it kill rangers so it is even more usefull against archer clumps?).
I think the best way would be to make spells/ abilitys/ units, that give low unit damage with middle area of effect (like arrow volley) or middle damage with small aoe (like Eomer spear), while both of them can be reused pretty fast. That way, your enemy can't just split up his units for a second and then go again into clump again. Another idea would be to implement a sickness state: Units that are sick don't get damage themselfes, but damage allied units very close to them (could be looking like poison but yellow instead of green). If your own units can damage near other units of yourself, you are in need to keep them away from each other. This could be added for Sorcerers of Angmar for example.

Smeargollum

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Gesandter der Freien Völker
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 369
  • #teamfish
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #146 am: 18. Apr 2020, 14:10 »
Hello everyone!
This is a very interesting suggestion by Fabian which would improve the gameplay of edain in my opinion.
If every faction would have a reliable aoe damage (not like Eormers spear throw which sometimes just hits a single guy but sometimes kills a lot) and cav would be nerfed the players could split their army in different part to fight for mapcontroll, which would be way more dynamic that it is now, and you couldn’t just clump everything together in a fight, which would increase the micro potential in a battle.
Further I agree with Fabian that it would be probably the best way to find such an aoe damage in the spellbook (like arrow volley, barrage, Rohan cav summon, etc…). But I also think it would fit to units like monsters (trolls, beornings, werewolves, …). If those units would get a higher splash damage with their standard attack but therefor can’t trample units (so they can’t take crush revenge damage from running in pikes because of delay) they would be a great way to implement aoe damage by units. Or as Halbarad already said, sorcerers by Angmar or maybe even loremasters by Imla are a wonderfull units for that purpose :D
And I also think it is important that this kind of anti-clump stuff is available early in the game and not just with a 3k hero (like Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel …) or a level 10 spellbook power (like the Isen mine, etc.) but by either early powers (like the arrow volley) or units you can get early in the game (like trolls).
So all over I think that such a change would improve the gameplay around the stage of the game where you fight for the mapcontroll (so not in a siege) by a lot. But since sieges are not competitive as I see it that is not a real problem.

Best regards
Smeagollum


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

Adrigabbro

  • Gesandter der Freien Völker
  • **
  • Beiträge: 392
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #147 am: 18. Apr 2020, 15:23 »
Is it by the way engine-wise possible to prevent clumping?

EDIT: The way I see it this is the best solution but it would obviously completely change the dynamics of the game. Many aspects would have to be modified/rebalanced.
« Letzte Änderung: 18. Apr 2020, 15:27 von Adrigabbro »


"That still only counts as one!"

Elendils Cousin 3. Grades

  • Administrator
  • Ringträger
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 5.696
  • German, Motherfucker! Do you speak it?
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #148 am: 18. Apr 2020, 15:32 »
It is technically possible, but the impact on pathfinding is so terrible that clumping is the lesser evil.

tolgayurdal

  • Gast
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #149 am: 19. Apr 2020, 12:16 »
Is it by the way engine-wise possible to prevent clumping?

I can confirm that as long as the player becomes problem-solver. Also the contributions are always welcomed upto balance of course.