Sieging and Snowballs
Hi everyone, I’d like to make a post about sieging and how it currently functions in edain
I will not suggest solutions to this problem in this post (I will make a separate post about that), instead I will simply analyse the problem
If we can all agree that this problem is real, we can look at ways in which to solve it.
My definition of sieging: When I talk about ‘sieging’ I’m talking about:
‘The endgame destruction of the enemy’s fort. The checkmate of edain.’
I am not talking about the early/mid game ‘raids’ on the base, which are much less affected by snowballing because these can (and do) happen when the balance between players is equal or even when the raiding player is losing.
The problem:Sieging is boring in 4.4.1.
But why?
My answer:
The ‘snowballing’ effect makes games pre-determined before the siege begins. A pre-determined game is boring. Therefore, sieging is boring.
What’s more, there’s currently no incentive for the attacker to begin the siege. It is in his favour to wait, max-out, then siege. As for the defender, there’s no real incentive to do anything (except perhaps to harass) and so in most cases the defender resigns before the siege begins. This is, again, because of the snowballing.
Snowballing is not a bad thing. In fact, it is often necessary to end a game. However, I feel there is a unique problem with snowballing when we implement sieging because the siege inevitably starts when one player is already losing.
Adding more unique and interesting sieging units is great, but it does not solve the core problem. These units will only shine if a siege actually happens!
What is snowballing?Snowballing is a positive feedback loop.
It is present in any game that involves resources that can be used to gain more resources. It goes a little something like this:
‘I win a battle, so I have more troops. I can now win more of the map and get more money. More money gives me more troops, more troops give me more money, more money gives me more troops etc. etc.’Unchecked snowballing leads to pre-determined games.
‘My economy is so big that even if I play like trash I can still easily win, I can buy back all I lose, you can’t.’ The opportunities for a comeback are diminished by the second when one player snowballs.
You can read more about snowballing (and some proposed fixes) here:
https://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/articles/the-snowball-effect-and-how-to-avoid-it-in-game-design--cms-21892Why does it matter in Edain?Almost every game has snowballing, and for good reason: someone needs to win! Stalemates are even more boring than sieges! All counters to snowballing in game design therefore reduce snowballing, instead of removing it completely.
So why even care about it in edain?
Snowballing becomes a uniquely problematic issue when we introduce end-game sieging into the game because we start from a severely imbalanced position.
A siege will only begin if the attacker has already won the map. The attacker will therefore have a huge economic and/or military advantage over the defender. The snowball is already in full swing! What’s more, it keeps getting bigger and bigger.
The defender hides in his base whilst the attacker builds an unstoppable force. There is no reward for the attacker to attack! The game is decided, and the win is only becoming more secured the longer he snowballs, until he maxes-out, at which point he demolishes the fort with ease.
The defender for his part is also racing towards maxing out, but he’s so much slower than his enemy, so time is working against him. The best tactic for the defender is to leave his fort as early as he can and try to wrestle back control of the map, striking whilst the snowball is small. If he is ever forced to stay in his fort the game is over. This is the exact opposite of what we want for sieging to exist in online play!
Does the problem exist and what does it look like? Evidence from gamesSo, what happens? The battle for the map (and therefore the game) is won by one player. Both players then sit there waiting for the snowball to be big enough to end the game. Perhaps the defender tries to harass, but the attacker has a superior army that can stop this harassment, he can recapture lost territory more easily. The units he loses fighting for said territory are less valuable to him thanks to his superior economy:
‘Whatever you can do I can do better – and even if can’t, f*ck it I’m rich!’.The snowball strikes again.
I’ve experienced this so many times in my own games and when observing others. I’m sure others can relate to this problem too. Just look at some of my videos, or your own replays or any game you play in the future.
Also, look to see how many times the ‘gg’ is given before (and in some cases WAY before) the siege starts. Why does this happen? Because we simply ask ourselves ‘What’s the point?’ and what is the point of sieging when the game is already over?
ConclusionSieging will not work in online edain unless we combat snowballing – some of the ways we can do this may seem a little extreme, but that is for my next post
CaveatThis problem of snowballing only exists if we want sieging to exist in online play. Offline there is no problem. The A.I does not care if the game is pre-determined. It’s actually quite nice to completely steam-role the enemy
. The problem also does not exist if we don’t care about sieging being played online. We could just accept that it is an optional extra instead of an essential, and competitive, finish to a game.