10. Aug 2020, 17:22 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 35907 mal)

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #150 am: 19. Apr 2020, 18:38 »
i just wanted to add to my idea about small strong AoE against clumping.
I think it's very important that those abilities work pretty much instantly. If the clumping opponent (especially when they are on-host) can simply spam "r" when hearing a warning shot it won't prevent them from clumping in the first place.
There needs to be a constant threat so that players start to pre-split and just make sure that their units never clump too much.

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #151 am: 29. Apr 2020, 16:16 »
Again just something to add to my idea about why more strong small AoE damage would be good for Edain. It is a well known effect in other rts that being able to clump several units into a single unit size kind of breaks the usual logic of good formations like forming concaves. It is for example a classic tactic for mutalisks in starcraft 1 or phoenixes in starcraft 2. The way the engine works in rotwk just makes this 1 size battalion clumping the optimal way to fight melee engagements, even more so ranged engaments and also protects from cavalry. I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly the reason why vanilla and the fan patches have so many devastating AoE spells and unit abilities. So i just think that this engine needs strong AoE damage to keep the game dynamic and fun, so that you can actually micro battalions in good formations, like trying to prevent getting individual battalions trampled or kiting with individual archer battalions back etc etc
Mass slaying abilities in edain have often been seen very negatively, but this has much to do with the fact that remaxing after losing your army is like 3 times harder than in vanilla (ca. half the income and 50% more CP compared to vanilla). Losing too many troops in edain often means losing the game not matter how far ahead you had been in any other metric, which is why players traditionally hated to much mass slaying abilities.

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #152 am: 29. Apr 2020, 18:53 »
i wouldn't decrease inflation, i would actually increase it but do some other key things

hi, when talking about edain gameplay, comebacks, sieges and inflation i have been hearing some people saying that you need a certain amount of snowballing so that one player can eventually win. Others use the term as if it means nothing more than "getting ahead". Both of these ideas are so wrong that i needed to write about :D
snowballing should mean that having an advantage now will grant you an even bigger advantage soon. For example if you have an advantage in Tennis, you don't have a better chance of winning the next point. There is 0 snowballing, it doesn't need snowballing, and it's much better because of it.

Edain (especially before inflation) had absolutely insane snowballing, even for an rts game . So much so that winning a small engagement in the early game could often decide the game, the only reason you "needed" so much snowballing is because the defenders advantage is so disgustingly high that you otherwise would need 2 hours to win the siege of a game that was decided after 5 minutes. For example, just being ahead a single battalion in the early game means you're gonna win the fight over the farm, so now you are ahead 1 battalion and 1 farm. Also 2 battalions fight against 1 battalion so efficiently that they barely lose any units. So it just keeps snowballing if no massive blunders occur. Another source of snowballing is the way spellbook points are gathered.

Inflation is one of the biggest counter mechanics to this high snowballing. It keeps the game open and undecided for much longer, you need to play well to win even when ahead or you lose your advantage. I would definitely not decrease inflation. I think people didn't like it because you don't have money for anything and because sieges take even longer that before, and more people are trying comebacks nowadays so sieges are more common.

Instead of decreasing inflation, how about edain makes winning sieges  easier and quicker through various means, increases the general income from farms so people finally have some money to spend in the midgame and yes, actually *increase* inflation a little bit more while decreasing the cost of outside eco. This way you would still be fighting over all 14 outside farms but getting more than say 16 farms in total wouldn't give you any more money. So you only build 2,3 inside eco and the rest is tech and production buildings. This would harmonize well with the increased general income so you can actually produce units from 2,3 or 4 unit production buildings. Which also allows for more playstyles and unit compositions.
A higher economy and more production buildings could also solve another problem that makes edain campy. Namely that losing units is often game losing because remaxing takes so long that you cannot fight your opponent for so long that you lose all map control because of it. Also,
the strong small AoE damage spells that i had suggested earlier would also have less danger of being game ending if remaxing would be easier.
« Letzte Änderung: 29. Apr 2020, 18:57 von Big F »

Smeargollum

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Elbischer Pilger
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 151
  • #teamfish
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #153 am: 1. Aug 2020, 16:55 »
Hello everyone,
I would like to talk about the tower on level 3 farms (once again :P).
At the moment each farm on a settlement get's a little ... I mean big tower when you have the level 3 economy upgrade researched.
In my opinion this tower deals too much damage so that it forces harassing battalions to retreate and wait until the tower stops shooting as it can do this "only" with an acitve ability. Even though you might think that this makes for some nice interaction between the players in the "harassing game" it just slows down the overall gameplay and it rewards the player that forms a deathball while it punishes the player that trys to splitt and harass at many diffrent places, in my opinion.
The investment in the economy upgrades would already be worthwhile without the defensiv tower because you get more money.
In order to have some access to the tower on the farm I would suggest to have it as an upgrade you can buy on each individual farm that enables the player to use the active ability for the tower.

In short (and maybe better understandable :D) form:
Remove the tower on level 3 farms as it is now because it slows the gameplay down.
Instead add it as an upgrade you can research on each level 3 farm (I hope that would be fine for playing vs the AI ...)

What do you think?
Best regards,
Smeargollum

FG15

  • Administrator
  • Hoher König von Gondor
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 4.681
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #154 am: 1. Aug 2020, 18:33 »
There aren't any visuals for such an extra upgrade.

JoJo(TheRealOne)

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Wanderer des Alten Waldes
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 61
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #155 am: 1. Aug 2020, 22:42 »
Hello,

I just noticed that bannercarriers can survive more trampels then the battalions they belong to do. That shouldn't be the case in my opinion. Banners are strong enough by themselfes and don't need to save a unit from being wiped out by a cav charge. So I suggest to reduce their hp/armor to the amount the usual archers have.

FG15

  • Administrator
  • Hoher König von Gondor
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 4.681
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #156 am: 1. Aug 2020, 23:05 »
Are you talking about banner carriers in general or those of archers? Because usually different units use the exact same banner carrier, such that a change to the banner carrier of archers would affect the one of swords or pikes too.

Seleukos I.

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Elronds Berater
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 316
Re: General Balance Discussion
« Antwort #157 am: Gestern um 14:57 »
Hello there :)

I’d like to suggest to reduce the ranged-damage (PIERCE)  taken by cavalry from 100% down to 65% by changing their armorset.

Now you may wonder why I do suggest that. Let me explain:

Let’s look at other units that counter each other:

Cavalry is the counter to swordsmen, because of that cavalry deals more damage vs swordsmen (135% of their normal damage), and at the same time swordsmen deal less damage (only 30%) to cavalry.

The same goes for swordsmen countering pikes: Pikes suffer more damage from swords (135%) while dealing less damage to them as well (only 65%).
Archers deal more damage to pikes (135%) because they counter them, this means pikes also deal less damage to archers.
It’s the same with cavalry and pikes; pikes deal bonusdamage vs cavalry and cavalry deal less damage to pikes.

Now we look at cavalry vs archers: The first part is the same, cavalry deals 135% damage vs archers … and yet archers deal a full 100% damage vs cavalry.

In my opinion that doesn’t really make sense. Every unit deals reduced damage to it’s counter except for archers.

The suggested change however would not only bring in line some numbers, but also affect the gameplay in a positive way.
Right now it can be observed quite often that cavalry – even expensive elite units – are simply shot down before reaching the enemy archers, the units they are supposed to counter. Increasing their resistance to archers would reward players who try to outmicro the enemy pikes over those who rely on own archers to “counter” enemy ranged units (which atm can lead to a rather campy and clumpy gameplay).


Best regards,
Seleukos

PS.
I know that with the logic of our „real world“ this change doesn‘t make too much sense, since archers were a good counter to charging cavalry. This is a game however, and in terms of gameplay cavalry is the counter to archers and that means, imo, that archers shouldn’t deal a lot of damage to cavalry. :P