General Balance Discussion

[Elendils Cousin 3. Grades]

And I'm just sitting here, waiting for someone to actually post a replay showcasing rams are op...

Rams are not meant to be units that are send in droves of 10 or 15? Maybe you need to send so many of them because with how strong defensive structures are, they don't do shit otherwise? There are so many statements in this thread that I just don't understand (who uses rams to take down settlements, seriously?), so please, somebody post a good replay. If this is as op as you claim, it should be easy to get one.

[DrHouse93]

And I'm just sitting here, waiting for someone to actually post a replay showcasing rams are op...

I actually did it, pal
Look at page 3, I posted a RohanVMordor match against a friend (keep in mind I'm not so skilled with Rohan, but at 1/3 of the match, when the ram spam starts, I couldn't do anything at all)

[Fine]

I see no need for a ram nerf at the moment.
That is all.

[Hamanathnath]

The reason people send rams in groups of 10-15 is because the can take down buildings so quickly that your army (wherever it is) can't make it back in time. 

I don't agree with Nerfing Rams, besides the increase in command points.  The attack speed or health or damage really isn't the problem I have with Rams, nor the reason I brought this topic up.  I just want the factions whose bases can't deal Rams when upgrade to be able to when certain faction clearly can. 

Take Isengard as an example.  Even if you do leave 1 or 2 units are your base to protect against Ram Rushes as multiple people have suggested, if your enemy sends 10-15 Rams, do you honestly think that the Units will be able to break the Ram before lose a lot of your base?  Even if your base is upgraded with Steel Bolts, it doesn't mean anything because they basically don't do any damage to Rams.  And the Defensive Warg Pit also won't do enough because if the Rams just destroy it first, then all the wargs there die if I remember correctly.  Is that really fair that certain factions can deal a lot better with Rams while others can't? 

[Skeeverboy]

Personally I think, that no base should be able to kill rams without any units. Instead of makeing the upgrades of the other fortresses stronger, I think the upgrades from Mordor and Gondor should be much weaker against siege weapons. It makes no sense for me, that a tower can kill a ram.

And it's not very hard to counter a ramrush, because:
- Units in your base can counter it easy
- Every faction can scout what the enemy do(Isengard: Bill Ferny, raven, Saruman on the tower, the palantíri)

[Hamanathnath]

There are certain things that need to be unrealistic in terms of Gameplay.  How does it make sense that people with swords can destroy a building?  It doesn't make sense, but it is something that needs to happen for the game to function properly.  I think the same applies to Rams and Upgraded Towers.  If you spend the money for upgradeing defenses, why should the Defenses not be able to hold off such a inexpensive army of Rams? 

[Odysseus]

Fair points all across the board. However, from a conceptual point of view, I think it makes most sense that Rams are most effective as early to mid game siege, and that when the enemy base starts upgrading, rams should lose their cost-efficiency, primarily if spammed. That is where you have the catapults come in for you. I do want to mention, factions always have two siege options, a ram and a catapult (except Lothlorien, they have Beornings and Ents), at the very least. Tell me, what is the significance of catapults if you can spam rams to do the same thing, but much cheaper? Also, catapults take more CP and cost more, and generally are much harder to spam. Lightweight rams only cost 20 CP, they are easy to field in numbers. Nobody is going to send in Rams unsupported, unless it is a sneaky surprise move. I thought this was common knowledge.
At first, I wanted to nerf rams into the ground for their cost-efficiency, which is through the roof. You can literally take down outposts costing 3000 with two rams that cost 600 together and a couple of infantry to meathshield for them. If such a building is not taken down, it will have suffered grievous damage, and will take ages to repair.

My opinion now is alligned with that of LoM, increase the CP to atleast prevent the spam. 

[Skeeverboy]

If you spend the money for upgradeing defenses, why should the Defenses not be able to hold off such a inexpensive army of Rams? 

The defense is strong enaugh to counter attacks of normal units.

There are certain things that need to be unrealistic in terms of Gameplay.  How does it make sense that people with swords can destroy a building?  It doesn't make sense, but it is something that needs to happen for the game to function properly

I don't talk from the sense, what is logical and what not, I talk from the sense why a tower should be able to kill his counter. It's like that a pikeman can kill a swordman, or a archer can kill cavallery.

[AmrothderTapfere]

Hello dear Edain-Community!

I played some edain matches and I have a big concern. Farms and buidings in general are falling way too quickly. Often I can't even send soldiers to defend farms.

Similarly, fortress buildings have too weak armor against rams and catapults, when they are attacked there is always no time to react quickly enough. So I propose a general building-life increase of about 50%.

I hope you like my balance idea.

[Walküre]

Hello dear Edain-Community!

I played some edain matches and I have a big concern. Farms and buidings in general are falling way too quickly. Often I can't even send soldiers to defend farms.

Similarly, fortress buildings have too weak armor against rams and catapults, when they are attacked there is always no time to react quickly enough. So I propose a general building-life increase of about 50%.

I hope you like my balance idea.

I think that this topic doesn't deserve a thread on its own for now. I will merge everything with the General Balance Discussion thread.

--- MERGED ---

[The_Nazgul]

When you play online this is so important:
"which hero you spend your valuable money on"
That is WHY i posted this comment and that is why the hero balancing discussion is important!
We may had this discussion before but i see it necessary to remind
About hero balancing;

Glorfindel : The last guardian of gondolin an elf who survived from the first age of arda and probably the most experienced elven lord in the matter of combat!
He cost 1800 just like Boromir and Mornamarth or Thorin III
Glorfindels abilities are fine but his stats? he has nothing special worthy of his legacy and history! in fact he should not be weaker than Durmarth or Mornamarth!
I say he deserve a higher hp and damage for a little more price!

Eomer : like glorfindel he is a 1.8k hero but you can easily slay him by gothmog or any nazgul remember he is not aoe he is a tank and a fighter he needs buff on his health and damage to be a perfect 2k hero while he is just good as arwen right now!

Helegwen : her ranged damage is super low in fact you can't do anything really with her regular attack while her abilities are very useful she deserve a higher ranged damage she has the same cost as denethor but much less on act!
(denethor can beat almost everything with his attack style while helegwen can't kill a scout hero)

Dain Ring hero : before you give the ring to him king dain/dain iron foot is one of the best heroes in the mod but when you give the ring to him he become the most useless hero of all times and slowest person of all ages!
so i can't say much more but to be honest King Dain was so strong against the desires and he refused one of the old dwarven rings!
While thorin the oakenshild had a great desire to almost every kind of jewel!
Second topic is about removing Durin the deathless the most bad A$$ Dwarf!
he had a great design and a great voice also great stats and abilities
I suggest when thorin oakenshild or dain pick up the ring they summon Durin the deathless he is the only Dwarf worthy of the ring of power!

Witch king of Angmar: just reminding and nothing more! i have already posted 10 comment about him.

Legolas : too weak for a 2200 cost hero!
he needs a proper ranged damage and his dagger ability cooldown needs a shorter time!
Gimli and Aragorn are both 2.5 k and very strong heroes , legolas on the other side not much on the battlefield really!

Dwalin : unlike thorin Oakenshield or gimli His health and melee damage is too low for a 2.4k hero! he dies so easily against most of heroes and his AOE style is not so good for that price! he needs a higher armor or damage.

Thorin III and Denethor are exactly reverse those heroes! they are exremely more powerful than what they should be!
So i think there is 2 way to balancing Them;
1-Keep their abilities and stats for a higher price!
Thorin III for +2k cost and Denetor for 2 or 1.8k would be perfect
2-Decrease their damage/range/health or decrease their ability effects!


I will also post this on the forum!

[Sefie1999AD]

How do you feel about Arrow Towers and other base defences? At the moment, they cost about 500 credits, and I think they're way too powerful against units. If you attack an enemy base that has all the defences built up, even fully upgraded units will die quickly there. Cavalry with Heavy Armor, Horse Shields and Banner Carriers will get shot really quickly due to their small battalion size. The same for elite and heroic units. The only thing that can survive inside a fully defended base are your heroes. While I realize this is needed to force the player to use siege, but I think we've pretty much reached the other bad extreme this way.

If the player has full map control, and the enemy is turtling inside their base, I think it's just lousy gameplay that the offensive player should spam siege and bombard the enemy base for 10 minutes (30 minutes with Rohan's Onagers ) while the fully upgraded army is better off protecting the siege weapons rather than attack. As both siege and towers seem to be too important in the late-game, I'd suggest making siege much more effective against towers, walls and gates, but much less effective against inner base structures and units. This not only makes sure you can't win by sneaking a single Battering Ram inside the enemy base, but it also forces you to use a varied force to take down an enemy base: siege to take out the outer defences, and units to destroy the actual base and the troops defending it.

[Elite KryPtik]

Siege and base defences are getting an overhaul in the next patch, there is no point in discussing them now.

[Sefie1999AD]

Even though the siege system is getting an overhaul, there's something about the overpoweredness of the Arrow Towers I'd like to point out. I'm not sure if this is a bug or intentional, but I still find it a very... peculiar balance design.

Here are the armor levels for cavalry in Edain:

Armor EdainCavalryArmor
  Armor = DEFAULT             100%
  Armor = SLASH                30%
  Armor = PIERCE              100%       
  Armor = CAVALRY_RANGED      100%
  Armor = SPECIALIST          135%
  Armor = CRUSH               100%
  Armor = CAVALRY             100%
  Armor = SIEGE               100%
  Armor = FLAME               100%
  Armor = FROST               100%
  Armor = MAGIC               100%
  Armor = HERO                100%
  Armor = HERO_RANGED         100%
  Armor = STRUCTURAL          135%
  Armor = CHOP                 45%
  Armor = URUK                 30%
  Armor = WATER               135%
  FlankedPenalty            =  12%   
End

The higher the number, the more Cavalry takes damage. For example, they take only 30% damage from swords (Slash), but 135% damage from pikes (Specialist). Note that they take 135% damage from Structural, which refers to Arrow Towers, level 2 Defensive Measurements and other structure-based defences. This is already quite a large number, meaning Arrow Towers wreck Cavalry. However, let's take a look at Cavalry with Heavy Armor:

Armor EdainCavalryHeavyArmor
  Armor = DEFAULT             100%
  Armor = SLASH                30%
  Armor = PIERCE               65%       
  Armor = CAVALRY_RANGED      135%
  Armor = SPECIALIST          135%
  Armor = CRUSH               100%
  Armor = CAVALRY             100%
  Armor = SIEGE               100%
  Armor = FLAME               100%
  Armor = FROST               100%
  Armor = MAGIC               100%
  Armor = HERO                150%
  Armor = HERO_RANGED         150%
  Armor = STRUCTURAL          200%
  Armor = CHOP                 30%
  Armor = URUK                 45%
  Armor = WATER               135%
  FlankedPenalty            =  12%   
End

Note how Structural does 200% damage now. This means Arrow Towers deal 1.5x more damage to Cavalry after you upgrade them with Heavy Armor, so upgrading your Cavalry makes them even more susceptible to base defences. This is not the only case, though. EdainInfantryArmor takes 100% damage from Structural weapons, while EdainInfantryHeavyArmor takes 150% damage. Same for EdainPikemanArmor and EdainPikemanHeavyArmor. The same applies to EdainTrollArmor and EdainTrollHeavyArmor. For EdainArcherArmor and EdainArcherHeavyArmor, the numbers are 50% and 75%, respectively.

If you upgrade a unit's armor, why make the unit more vulnerable? I can somewhat understand why Cavalry_Ranged, Hero and Hero_Ranged have been increased, as those unit types are reasonably rare, and can be considered specialized in taking out heavily armored units, but base defences are way too easy to spam. With the current system, only Battering Rams (1% damage from Structural), Catapults and their equivalents (1% damage from Structural), and Heroes (25%-35% damage from Structural, 15%-25% damage with armor upgrades) take reasonably low damage from Catapults, so when you're assaulting a fully towered enemy base, you're better off sending your Cavalry, Swordsmen and Pikes elsewhere, and have Heroes and maybe Archers support your siege equipment, or otherwise your army, to which you spent lots of resources to upgrade, will be hopelessly massacred.

Even if there will be new siege units, I can't really consider this kind of balance design very strategic, as it reinforces that you switch your late-game to practically one unit type, which is siege (well, combined with heroes as cannon fodder). In the vanilla game, upgrading units with Heavy Armor made them take 1/3-2/3 of the damage they'd normally take from Structural type weapons. Even in Edain 3.8.1, upgrading with Heavy Armor made the units take 0.75x of their original Structural damage. I'd really hope that the Structural damage for units with Heavy Armor upgrade will be reduced to the levels they were in 3.8.1, so that you can successfully mix both siege and your army to assault an enemy base. For Rohan, this is almost impossible on a Castle map, since a) their Onagers deal pitiful damage, and b) all of their other non-hero units (especially Cavalry, which is Rohan's trademark) get wrecked by defences.

[Julio229]

I can only agree with you, the fact that towers are even more effective against upgraded units completely kills the usefulness of these units in sieges.