28. Mär 2024, 19:16 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: greater distinction between early and late game  (Gelesen 2507 mal)

Tirano

  • Thain des Auenlandes
  • *
  • Beiträge: 28
greater distinction between early and late game
« am: 30. Apr 2016, 01:55 »
Isengard currently has a unique style of playing with a great distinction between early and late game, the focus of these ideas are make this distinction even bigger and new. It goes without saying that my ideas don´t  take care about balance of the game.
 

1) Make "machinery of war" be an upgrade that is unlocked only one time from the main citadel if you comply certain requirements (like some control map or 20 structures and also have Saruman in game), this upgrade have high cost, and permits  training of heavy Uruk-hais in the uruk-pit  and steel works (to give even more useful to this outpost) also allows the construction of siege works (with all available units) and armory. This upgrade automatically implements the wizard's tower and allows to implement the other three citadel upgrades with the only difference that no longer accumulate % with other citadels.


2) Add the option to recruit spear of dunland from the clan steading, I think right now the biggest weakness of Isengard is cavalry in early game.  I think this unit may have different banner carrier or maybe just a captain with no banner in lvl 2... is wrong that this units can upgrade banner carrier with the hand of Isengard because I don´t think that Saruman would like in a beginning to receive the credit for damage caused by mens of dunland also it will be nice to unlock this upgrade when you have the heroes of dunland in game.

3) Remove the warg sentry as structure and make it an upgrade of the Lock out tower and raise the cost to 400 to 600 (of the warg sentry), also only can improve when you have a warg-pit. In this way you don´t have to consume two spaces of construction.

4) Wargs should have different upgrade like uruk scout once Sharku is in game one for damage like forge blades but with other name and other to unlock a banner carrier or captain. Not upgrade for armor.


summarizing the concept is to raise the cost of the upgrade "machinery of war" so heavy Uruk-hai and siege units are only part of the late game of Isengard, with this implemented the game of  this faction will focus on explosiveness of early game to gain ground and resources with scout of Isengard, mens of Dunland, warg ridders and heroes so you can upgrade "machiney of war" and reach to late game where you can get a very good army ... the greatest weakness of this faction will be in the middle game where despite the map control and good performance in early game units may not make front to enemy improvements units. I´m apologize for mi English and i would like to see your opinion to improve this ideas.

Odysseus

  • Galadhrim
  • **
  • Beiträge: 718
Re: greater distinction between early and late game
« Antwort #1 am: 30. Apr 2016, 02:32 »
Zitat
It goes without saying that my ideas don´t  take care about balance of the game.
Which is also the reason why such a concept will not see the light in the Edain mod. With all due respect, but if you wish to see such a concept or any concept for that matter implemented into the mod, you will have to adhere to the basic requirements. Balance is one of them, besides practicality and transparency etc.

When it comes to gameplay, certain matchups are already quite tough for Isengard with their early game handicap. Gondor with a Gondor Knights rush is one of them. This is already the case with how Isengard is currently designed. It would only get worse with what you suggest to change and not solve Isengard's issues in certain matchups.

I suggest you inform yourself on the current status of the ''meta'' of Edain, and understand the current strengths and weaknesses of each faction on a competitive level and try to shape your suggestions around that knowledge.

Finally, Isengard has undergone quite some changes since their initial release, to the point where the team feels that Isengard is in a solid spot, and that such radical changes are not what is required any longer. I advise small and subtle changes.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say, and I don't mean to discourage you from posting your thoughts. Just keep in mind what I told you. Also, your English is fine.

Kind regards,

Odysseus.
“For so sworn good or evil an oath may not be broken and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world's end.”

Tirano

  • Thain des Auenlandes
  • *
  • Beiträge: 28
Re: greater distinction between early and late game
« Antwort #2 am: 30. Apr 2016, 04:31 »
I will not stop writing my ideas because of the balance and nobody should do it... good ideas in a beginning can arise not thinking in the balance of the game, is obvious that every idea affect the balance but that can always be readjustable (also when you think how can i make a idea readjustable a better idea can go out). 
I take a look in a lot of topics and always somebody says  "that is to op or will affect the balance" i think that corresponds to a second stage of ideas. the community in general is to hard with new post and it is completely understandable but we have to be more open with new ideas.

i´m not saying that i have a tremendous idea haha but it will be nice to see some reviews not thinking in the balance.

I play online and i know the meta... i think with a lot of work some of this ideas can arise

Walküre

  • Edain Unterstützer
  • Hoher König von Gondor
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 4.706
Re: greater distinction between early and late game
« Antwort #3 am: 30. Apr 2016, 04:51 »
Trust me, the 'young' Edain English Community is well open and free, so that we managed to achieve great results in the past, by proposing and actually constructing great polished and unique proposals, despite the difficult and troublesome journey that was sometimes necessary to cope with (just to mention some of them: the support for a Dwarven overhaul, Narin, the Grey Mountains and other incredible concepts). Thus, I don't really think we have to open our mind more widely and to be more creative than how we have been so far  ;)

Everyone is very welcome to express its own opinions, but facing and countering constructive criticism is also part of the 'game', if you are really intended to come up with a shared and well-structured idea.

On the matter, what you say about balance being a secondary aspect could be true if we dealt with purely graphical or conceptual proposals; if you want to change something about numbers and gameplay, instead, balance is absolutely fundamental, and your proposal exactly concerns those two fields. You just can't do without it.

The_Necromancer0

  • Edain Team
  • Beschützer des verbotenen Weihers
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 1.528
  • There is evil there that does not sleep
Re: greater distinction between early and late game
« Antwort #4 am: 30. Apr 2016, 08:03 »
I'm gonna have to agree with Odysseus, the distinction for Isengard is already very emphasized, I don't think the first Machinery of War should be made any harder to get. However maybe small part of the changes you have proposed could be applied to the second one. The second machinery of war unlocks advanced unit including the mine berserker and explosive mine. In my eyes it would make sense if it was required for saruman to be on the field for that to unlock, but I don't see a need for such a change since they don't cause any balancing issues where players simply rush bases with them. But keep trying, although I would still look a bit at balance in your original post :)
Come chat Edain on Discord: https://discord.gg/CMhkeb8
Questions on the Mod? Visit the Official Wiki: http://edain.wikia.com/