28. Mär 2024, 10:24 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: Melting the snowball, The five headed beast: Ideas to promote siege battles.  (Gelesen 3131 mal)

Goodfella

  • Gastwirt zu Bree
  • **
  • Beiträge: 115
  • *Insert something cool here*
Ok buckle up, grab a cup of tea (with milk) and a Jammie Dodger... it's gonna be a long one (even by my standards) :P

First I will try to convince you it's important to make changes, then i will suggest some changes to be made.

Before I begin I want to ask you some questions:

1) How many times (if ever) have you seen one player win the entirety of the map and begin a 'true-siege', whilst the defender stays inside his fort to defend the siege, then the defender wins that siege and then makes a comeback, re-wining the map and launching a counter siege on his enemy?

2) Do we want such a situation to arise? Is that even a good thing? Should we aim to make it happen in every game?

3) If not, what is the alternative?

4) If yes, how can we achieve this?

Now to provide my answers to these questions:

Seeing comebacks from a 'true siege'

In all the (probably hundreds) of games I've played I've seen this happen maybe 10 times. And inevitably was either due to awful play from the attacker (myself included), in which they essentially threw the game, and/or the use of something extremely OP from the defender.

To clarify, by 'true siege' i mean that one player has won control of the entire map (he's taken all the farms and outposts he wants) and is making siege weapons to finish off his opponents base. Whilst the defender remains INSIDE his base, defends against that siege and then either loses his base or wins and pushes out.

I don't mean smaller 'raids' on the base, whilst the map control is still up for grabs where one player has caught the other off guard with a base rush. This can happen at anytime in a game. I've also seen people winning the map but the defender pushing out before the siege and then regaining control of the map, again usually though awful play and/or OP stuff.

Do we want truly competitive siege in almost every game?

With all my posting about this issue, I'm actually quite cautious. I think it could be dangerous. We don't want stalemates. We don't want (i assume) 5-6 siege and re-sieging in every game until one player losses focus.

It's also dangerous (if we decided to really tackle it) because of the community's potential reaction to some the changes (which is why I want to debate it and come to a consensus). Some of the changes that are made to promote this type of sieging may be controversial, but perhaps necessary in order for it to exist.

With all that said, I, for one, DO want to see this situation arise. How cool would it be to have a LOTR style Helmsdeep/ Minas Tirith Siege every single game? A real, COMPETITIVE (with win/loss at stake) siege featuring multiple units (ladders, rams, catas, bombs) attacking simultaneously? I think that it would be so fitting with the BFME1 castle-style gameplay and would provide even more justice for 4.0's choice in this building system.

What's the alternative?

The alternative, as i see it, is what we have already. Sieging dosen't really exist in edain in most games. You lose the map you gg. That's to say, the game is over BEFORE a 'true-siege' begins, not after it.

The alternative therefore is for siegeing to be an optional extra, do it if you find it fun, don't if you find it boring. Some people would argue that that's not such a bad option. I agree, it's not bad, but it could be so much better!

What can we do?
The number 1 issue with sieging in edain is snowballing. If you don't know what i'm talking about you'll have to go read my previous post 'snowballs and sieging', which explains why.

If you CBA here's it summarised it one sentence:

snowballing: more money = more troops = more money = more troops = more money etc.

The player who has map control is always snowballing more than their enemy, they have more troops and more eco (that's how they won the map!)

I'm also cautious here, because i'm unsure if it's even possible to make it work :/ . The reason being, the attacker will always start the siege with a significant advantage. What if there's just an inherent issue with sieging and map controlling all in one game.

Snowballing happens in tennis (bear with me here :P) where one player slowly builds his advantage with his shots until he wins the point. But then: that's it, he's won the point and they start over from scratch. It's almost like a tennis match is made up of lot's of little snowballing games (points) but each point does not affect the next - except perhaps psychologically. That's why SC tournaments are best of 3/5. Edain wants map control battle and siege battle all within the same snowball-ridden game.

If edain was simply a siege game, it wouldn't be an issue - you could give the attacker and defender an equally balanced position to start, but it's not - it's map control, then siege. It's almost as though edain is trying to be two games at once.

That being said, the beginning of the siege DOESN'T have to start from an equal position. The attacker has won map control after all, so they should be rewarded for playing better. But crucially, they should not be rewarded TOO MUCH. They shouldn't auto-win because of the map.

In order for 'true-sieging' to be a regular part of almost every game played, the defender needs to have genuine chances to win before a during a siege. Because if they don't they will not want to play the siege.

That means, map control lost, hiding in the base with units and defending against a siege with genuine chances to WIN not just prolonging defeat.

That's where the difficulty in balancing is. However, the first thing we must do is combat the snowball. But how?

Melting the snowball, The 5 headed beast:

I see the the snowballing in edain as a beast with 5 heads. Each 'head' is a positive feedback loop that contributes more to the snowballing effect. Bear in mind, all these feed back loops feed into one another, to make the 'problem' worse.

I'll now outline what they are and how I propose to counter them

1) Economy

This is the main feature that causes the snowball, as in all RTS games, the more your winning the more eco you have, which makes you win more. I talk way more about this in my previous post.

The solution: Inflation.

Each additional farm you have produces less money for you. The growth of your economy is no longer exponential, it's almost as if you stuck some breaks onto the snowball, slowing it's roll down the hill.

2) Command Points

This is possibly the second biggest issue with snowballing but at times can be even more problematic than eco:

When one player is winning they can afford to buy more pantry upgrades and have more farms and therefore have a much higher command point limit.

On the other hand, when one player is loosing, they have less command points - they have lost outside farms (often ones that have received a pantry upgrade) and don't have the cash to spare to buy inside pantry upgrades. They need this cash for troops, because the enemy has more, but they can't buy more because they have no command points - it's a Catch 22. I'm sure you've found yourself in this situation if you've ever lost a 1v1 (of course i wouldn't know about this, having never lost a game in my life  :P )

A solution: Get rid of the idea of increasing command points during the game (through more farms or pantry upgrades). Have the max command points from the start. This would completely delete the positive feedback with command points.

Too extreme? I don't think so but if it's agreed that it is, we could just make command point upgrades way cheaper. It would kinda do the same job, but for no real extra benefit imo. I prefer the first option.

We can also, i would suggest both in fact: have a lower command point by default in standard games. 1000 command points being the limit for example.

This would be like building a wall that the snowball crashes into: yes you can get more money but eventually you can't buy anymore stuff because of your command points. The increase in power of the winning player plateaus earlier the less command points available.

3) The Spell-Book

Another pretty significant positive feedback loop:

Spell-book powers are gained by getting kills and who gets more kills? The player with the bigger army dummie! Who's got the bigger army? The guy who's winning of course! Boom, there's your snowballing!

A solution: Have spell-points gained not per kill but over time. Again, this will delete the feedback loop entirely:

The player who's losing gets the same amount of spells as the player who's winning. The players are therefore not rewarded, or punished, by what they did earlier in the game but what they will do NOW with their equal powers.

I can't think of another option, can you?

4) Experience

Perhaps less significant? Mogat, i think may disagree:

Units gain experience and get buffs to their stats. Which army will more likely keep their troops alive, gain kills, and therefore experience? The one that is already winning: snowball.

A solution:

GET RID OF EXPERIENCE!!!!!! All heroes forever at level 1 or riot!

Jk, jk. I'm not gonna be THAT extreme. I'd simply suggest, if we need to, reduce the buff that experience grants troops and heroes.

5) Troops

The player with more troops is likely the one who is winning and they are more likely to keep a hold of these troops whilst killing the enemy.

Solution: send the plague to decimate the winning players troops every 10 minutes to even the odds, high population densities breed disease right? Makes sense?

OK, i'll stop with my shitty jokes.  :P

My real, potential, solution (although perhaps no less controversial): an upkeep cost for troops, as seen in other RTS games like CoH:

You get less income, the more troops you have, so that you don't get doubly rewarded for more troops AND more eco. It flips the feedback loop on its head. This is less about troops and more about eco again:

It's important to realise here that there is still an advantage for the attacker in this 'upkeep cost' scenario. They after all have more troops and these more troops are the only real concrete advantage. Under good play, you will win with them, but crucially, with poor play: it makes it easier to lose. Said another way, it provides opportunity for an enemy comeback.



OK Few, there's some of my thoughts on the issue. Perhaps not all of these would be essential to make it work and of course we need to be careful, as ever, to avoid stalemates - that after all is why snowballing is put into games.

I know this is something that the team is thinking about and looking to change and I look forward to seeing what the next patch brings.

Finally

This is a game. It's for fun:

From my experience, it makes it more fun, not less, even as the attacker when snowballing is reduced. It's boring to switch-off your noggin and steamroll the enemy for the 15th time, just because you won in the early game. It's more exciting realise that, if I start playing bad i can lose, but if i continue to play well i WILL win: that's good gameplay. That's fun gameplay.

This is true whether we can make sieges work or not. Remember that if you think we shouldn't care that much about sieges

I've started this thread as a place where we can discuss game-play mechanics that could promote fun sieges in edain. These are my ideas, disagree and debate against me, agree and debate against others: just discuss, discuss, discuss so we can improve this great mod.

You, of course, can even argue whether this is an issue at all! 'Just leave it as it is' you could say! But tell me why you think that! I want to know what you think! So reply and let me know.

Thanks!
« Letzte Änderung: 23. Aug 2018, 21:10 von Goodfella »
Euggghhh, I'm dead - Gildor 2017

Brisingr

  • Bibliothekar Bruchtals
  • **
  • Beiträge: 267
Great ideas (as usually ;) ) on this topic!

I  want to make some suggestions:

Economy:
  • simple change: boost fortress production to balance "home base income" and "field income"
  • enhanced change: boost fortress production over time -> reward for fast expansion in EG (and fast sieging), but the steep and snowballing economy curve gets flattened

CP:
  • another problem with the defenders CPs is the obligation to choose between CP and ECO in your base -> transfer the CP upgrades to the citadel (maybe that one is already planned ?... can't remember)
  • after some time in the game (maybe 25-30 min.) you get the citadel ability "recrute city population", which gets you a decent amount (~500) of CPs. A possible nerf would be a limit to 10 minutes. I could also imagine a possible choice with other fortress defending abilities - as for example starting a timer to get allied reinforcements


Spell-Book:
  • i don't like the decoupling of Spell Points to the winning of fights, but i could live with a weakened dependence on it. So maybe a standard gain over time and extra points for killing?

no ideas concerning Experience

Troops:
in Celtic Kings: The Punic Wars you need to have enough food for your army, otherwise your troops are loosing health points. I like this system very much and vote for upkeep-costs! (linear, exponential, etc. needs to be tested)

Greetings!
Brisingr aka Galdrion

Goodfella

  • Gastwirt zu Bree
  • **
  • Beiträge: 115
  • *Insert something cool here*
Thanks for your reply @ Brisingr

Now, my reply... to your reply :p

Economy
I like the idea of an increased citadel resource as this will be a non-map dependent economy supply. This may be of particular importance to a faction like mordor or isen, who have more constant raids on their inside farms. Perhaps a buff to the overall health of the citadel would help here too, to make this economy more secure. It would also provide an added incentive for the attacking player to destroy the citadel, perhaps by going over the wall or through the gate with troops: something we all want in fun sieges.

The only thing i'd say is that a simple upgraded eco on the citadel would affect both players and therefore would not combat snowballing. Having the citadel eco suffer from inflation would however combat the snowball. Perhaps we could have the citadel be even more affected by inflation than other buildings: so that in the early it provides a pretty huge boost to both players but gives increasingly less to the winner as they win more and more. Again this would combat the double buff of more (and better troops) AND more eco. In fact the more i think about it that's a pretty great idea! Thanks! It would really increase the need for the attacker to get rid of that darn citadel as quick as possible (encourage seige)

CP
I personally don't know how well a citadel cp upgrade would work because, again, the attacker can get it too. I guess it does have the advantage of being non-map dependent. It may also increase the 'reward-factor' for the enemy to quickly siege and get rid of it, if it held loads of CP, which would be nice. But if you still need money to upgrade it, it makes the snowball worse, not better. Perhaps the extra eco from your citadel may help, but meh it still seems kinda over-complicated to me personally.

I personally prefer to just have the CP as it is at the start, like in some other RTS games. Thereby completely deleting this issue.

Although, I wonder, what if the citadel was the only CP upgrade-able building in the game. So that you start with a pretty high amount say half or 2/3 but can upgrade it through the citadel for the rest. This would make it a really juicy target (in combo with the eco) and the whole siege could be centred around the destruction of the citadel, you'd wanna get rid of it quick if you were the attacker. Increasing the health of the citadel would make sense here too as it would play such a pivotal role. Perhaps that's the best of both worlds? Just a thought...

If you lost your citadel in this kind of scenario it would basically be gg (remeber it provides your spell-points too!). Therefore the siege would become: attacker tries to kill citadel at all costs, defender defends it at all costs. The attacker needs to kill it asap. The defender has a chance as long as it stands. The new checkmate of edain? I kinda like it...  [uglybunti]

Spell-Book:
Yes i don't like this either, because of the positive feed back loop. I hope it is possible for spells over time, maybe though it is not possible? If it is I think it would be the simplest and best solution, no need to reduce spell gain or any added complexities if it can be done imo.

Troops:
My vote is also for upkeep cost!

However, again, i worry about overloading the system. My hope remains that the concrete advantages of the larger army for the attacker is reward enough for his earlier victories though. And remember, we want time to be on the side of the defender, not the attacker - so that the attacker actually starts to siege and the defender stays because he has hope. It would make the siege mean something. Currently time is on the side of the attacker:

he waits, he snowballs, he wins.

That's what needs to change

« Letzte Änderung: 23. Aug 2018, 22:09 von Goodfella »
Euggghhh, I'm dead - Gildor 2017

NoldorSithLordsShipwright

  • Gast
On the Spellbook

I'm honestly not sure what the logic is behind the current system of "spell-points per kill." I imagine, ideally, the spellbook can be something like "research" which accumulates over time.

I think the game can afford to keep this even between players, as for every spell one player gains, so too has the opponent gained an equivalent spell. Given that the total spellbook costs vary between factions (usually ~50-55), this would serve very well for balancing.

I think we can keep the feature where spells are tied to the citadel, and are denied to a player who has lost their citadel.

On Experience

I think all fielded troops and heroes should definitely gain experience over time in addition to gaining experience from the battles they partake in. It would keep one player from completely outstripping another. One can imagine this as them training and practicing while outside of the actual battle.

On Troops

I agree, an upkeep cost for troops (and maybe heroes?) would help keep an attacker from snowballing.

But there remains the problem of retaining troops after a battle. Given that troops only flee on command, unless the player commands a retreat, every battle is going to end in bloody annihilation for one force or the other (if not both).

The game engine is pretty old and so I do not know how well this could be implemented if at all, but a morale mechanic (such as in Total War) where troops (and maybe heroes?) attempt to flee battle on their own would offset these losses, allowing a disadvantaged player to not be overly punished by his losses in small clashes before the final climactic battle.

Halbarad

  • Edain Unterstützer
  • Soldat Gondors
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 1.682
Hello,
I think you are going with some of your suggestions way too far.

You may right about no coming back for a player when he lost all of his outside buildings, but in my opinion you forgot that there are other game modes then 1v1.
If you play 3vs3 and both teams are going to loose a team mate in time, it sometimes depends on who can hold out longer in his fortress. So it gives a real benefit to the defending player with better defensive tactics and it is a benefit for the attacking player to kill the defending player fast.

Command Points and economy
I played a lot of Edain 3.8.1 and there I played a lot of 2vs3, 3vs4 and also some 1vs2.
In Edain 4.4.1 it is much more difficult for a player to do this, in my opinion especially because of the new command point system. You like to make this system even stronger and like this these games will be more difficult. Benefits of being alone in Maps like Black Gate and having more farms will be more useless with these kind of systems.

Experience and Spellpoints
Exactly the same thing: If you kill more enemy Units, you should get some reward. Otherwise, tactics like massive Mordors Orc-spam will be much more effective. Also, in ffa players won't be forced to attack the others or rather getting benefits from it (only risk that another player runs into there fortress while they are fighting someone else). And defensive Gameplay is normally kind of boring.

What I do like/ suggest:
1. Spells together with Citadel
How about if you lose your fortress, Spells are getting 50% slower charged (with outpost-citadel, you can still use spells like always).

2. Citadel upgrades
How about upgrades which, as long as you are buying them, don't allow you to upgrade your farms outside of the fortress and/or stops their recourcess production.
So it functions like this: You activate a mode with similar impacts on all your farms as Angmars pluage spell does on an enemys farm.
Maybe it could also stop building repair, so its not a very good option for the attacker. But like this, you can upgrade your fortress with cheap upgrades, which are letting your citadel produce more ressources, commandpoints and maybe giving you some other benefits, like Angmars Citadel can produce now Workers to level up Angmars buildings. These kind of Upgrades should be only available in the middle game, so you can't get it at the beginning of the match when you don't have outside farms. Maybe after you got your central spell or something like this.

3. Experience through time with a building
I had seen once a suggestion like this: The player gets a new building that functions like a well, but instead of healing, it gives your troops experience. Like battle pits or gladiators battle arena, in this building 2 or more soldiers are fighting each other and soldiers around can watch them and gain experience slowly. Problem: Banner carrier could get much more useless and there are these other things I said earlier about defensive players in ffa and so on.

Let me know what you think about that and if there are any questions about things I wrote then let me know  :)
« Letzte Änderung: 26. Aug 2018, 00:05 von Halbarad »

Goodfella

  • Gastwirt zu Bree
  • **
  • Beiträge: 115
  • *Insert something cool here*
Hi, thank you for you reply @Noldor

Spellbook
I think spell points per kill is a way to reward a player for playing well. It's understandable why this is put in. But we have to be careful to reward a player too much, to avoid snowballing. I agree with you that spell-points should be given equally to players (e.g. through spell points over time).

The winning player will always be rewarded, they will always have more troops than their enemy, they killed them after all. I think the question is: how much do we want to reward the player? We have to constantly consider this in the context of 'wanting sieging' too.

I love the fact that spells are connected to the citadel. It gives a nice juicy target to aim for in a siege.

Experience
Experience over time? Hmmmm. That's controversial but i kind of like it? Nori has it already, so it's certainly possible. I think lots of people will not like it though. I kind of don't not like it, if that makes sense  :P

The biggest fear is that it will be too much too soon. I think other features should be put in first and if we are struggling do deal with snowballing and 'no-seiging'. Then it could be debated. I predict that's gonna be a hell of a debate tho  :D

Troops
I like the idea of upkeep cost, but again, it's something that may be too much too soon. Perhaps we should see what the other changes are like first, then decide if we need it.

We don't want stalemates, and never ending sieges, that's even worse than snowballing XD

A routing mechanic would be interesting but unnecessary imo. If anything routing makes it worse for the loosing player. He starts to lose the battle, then loses control of his army (can't micro them). The enemy then picks off the remained of troops while they run out of control.

Thanks again for your reply
Euggghhh, I'm dead - Gildor 2017

DrHouse93

  • Elronds Berater
  • **
  • Beiträge: 336
Just came in my mind an idea about the "siege problem"

First of all, we must look at history. What used to happen during a siege?
The defender gathered all the possible resources and troops behind his walls (or in the very proximity) to fight back the invaders, but not to assault them on their own

How can this be implemented in Edain? The possible solution I thought is the following ability, selectable in the citadel:

"Defend the bastion

It can't be activated in the first 5 minutes of game. It can be activated only if all the player's troops are in short range of the fortress, and can't be activated if it's already active for a fortress

The troops of namefaction gather all the resources they can to prepare themselves to defend their bastion. For the following 5 minutes, all external economic buildings will send all their income directly to the main base, and therefore will generate no resources. On the other hand, internal economic buildings will generate 50% more resources. Furthermore, the ability doubles the CP limit, halves the research time of inner economic upgrades and the recruitment time of units inside the fortress, but new troops, being called to arms faster than the ordinary, are less trained, and therefore gain experience more slowly. Also, troops and siege engines inside the radius of the ability gain +25% armor

The ability has a very long cooldown (10-15) minutes, and is instantly deactivated if the troops get out of the ability radius"

This, I think, should provide the defender player enough buffs to not only survive a siege (provided it's skilled enough) but also to comeback, without creating a stalemate and also forcing the attacker to end as quickly as possible (because, while it's true that the ability only lasts for 5 minutes, the more time the attacker wastes, the more the chances the defender has to drive him back and come back

Also, the doubled CPs (rather than a fixed value) should work well with how the besieged player played until now: if he has played well and has a decent amount of CPs, even if his pantry buildings are destroyed, the ability should grant him decent CPs while the ability remains active. On the other hand, if he played bad, or just sat in his base the whole time, he's granted the minimum CPs buff he can get

The Units' Recruitment Factor is very similar to Denethor's Emergency State (which I was mainly inspired from, in fact). However, while Denethor's troops cost less, have worse stats and can't be upgraded, Defend the Bastion doesn't affect the troops' stats overall, neither removes the possibility to upgrade them, while also not making them useless once the invaders have been driven back, because the experience problem can be solved over time (through spells, heroes, or even by fighting repeatedly)

Gnomi

  • Administrator
  • Bewahrer des roten Buches
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 12.617
Zitat
First of all, we must look at history. What used to happen during a siege?
The defender gathered all the possible resources and troops behind his walls (or in the very proximity) to fight back the invaders, but not to assault them on their own
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH [ugly] [ugly] [ugly] I just hope that you didn't read that in a book about (medieval) history.

I won't say anything about the idea itself, just about the historical facts, because you are making it too easy for yourself DrHouse with your assumption about historical sieges.^^
 If you really want to talk about medieval accurate sieges, you have to look at a bit more:

First you have to differ between medieval castles, medieval cities and some more different types of fortified constructions (like single towers etc.) - I will mostly look at castles, as I would call most of our big fortified constructions (with walkable walls) a castle. Mainly Gondor is a difference, as (if you are historically accurate) it would probably be called a city, not a castle. I know that there is a difference between a historical (medieval) castle and fantasy castles. (our Gondor-castle would probably be a fantasy castle, but - as said - not a medieval castle)

What's the main difference between a castle and a City?
A city is a civil complex. Of course there can be military buildings (like guardrooms), but they are made to serve the civil purposes. A city also (most of the times) had the right to build a wall. Quite often (but not always) it was linked to the market rights.
Gondor, being able to build a market and many houses for civilian purposes, has therefore structures, which belong into a city, but not a castle.

A castle is a military complex and a residence for the leader (goverment) of the area. Of course there can be civilian buildings in a castle, but they are made to serve the military or government purposes.
The military purposes of a castle are divers. Most of the times it's like military barracks in our current world: Weapons are stored and fighters are trained and can live there.



But now let's focus on the siege of medieval castles. Mostly there weren't all civilians in the castle, most of them stayed outside. It is rather similar to wars in our current world:
If you attack (in WW I, WW II or any other war) a country, you don't want to destroy everything and everyone. Why should you kill all civilians and all civil buildings?
You don't want to destroy everything, you want to conquer the country and having all the buildings and a working society will be way better for you, as you don't have to build everything new and also don't have to wait until your peasants in your country get enough children, who can live in the conquered lands.

Sometimes strategies like scorched earth were used, but that were just temporarely strategies - in the long run you don't just want to destroy everything.

We also alle know that it is reaaally difficult to siege a castle and win. You needed way more men and better equipment, otherwise your chances to win were basically 0. 
But if it is so difficult to siege a castle:
WHY SHOULD YOU ATTACK IT? Why don't you just take all the other lands around the castle or starve them out?

Let me first talk about starving them out, because it is quicker to talk about that:
There are mainly two different reasons against it:
Most of the times, time was in favor of the defender.
Is winter close? => You want to stay in the castle and don't want to stay in some tents outside the castle.
Is a big army coming? => Quite often the attacker has already rallied all his troups, while the defender wasn't able to do it. If they get reinforcements, it will be way more difficult to attack the castle. Also they might have enough troups to win in a full fight.
Quite often you also don't have enough troups to fully cut them of supplies, so they might also manage to rally more truops in near settlements and get a slowly growing force by that.
There were more reasons, but those were some of the most important reasons.
Especially in combination with scorched earth, this will lead to nearly nothing.

Now let's talk about ignoring the troups in the castle, while you just took all the land around the castle. If you can't attack them and can't starve them... Why even bother with them?
And here we come to the tricky part:
Most wars in medieval times weren't decided by a big battle, where every side just used all their soldiers. Actually most big battles were very onesided and not as close as in lord of the rings. Mostly after the beginning, one side began to get the upper hand, the moral of the enemy broke and it was just a slaughter.
Most of the wars were decided because of many small skrimishes. And that was exactly why you weren't able to ignore the fortress:
They could always start small skirmishes: Get out without you noticing, attacking one position (as they were attacking, they had more and stronger people there most of the time) and then they had the possibility to retreat to the castle. Your troups had no castle, threfore not such a huge and easy defendable defense. Also you weren't able to harass the people in the fortress.
Even if you already try to starve them, they would still be able to do those small skirmishes in their favor.

So the main reason to attack a castle was because they had a safe place and could always harass you, while you had big difficulties to fight it.

So forbidding the player to leave the fortress, would actually be the exact opposite of what a true medieval siege looked like. The defender should (until the exact moment when cataupults, siege towers and ladders started rolling to your base) always try to find small skirmishes, destroy the suplies and so on. THAT would be historical accurate.
Your idea would force the player to use the ability long before the actual siege starts and this would lead to a gameplay, which is everything but historical accurate.^^




Just a small note:
I know that orcs would probably kill all the people and would most likely use scorched earth as a strategy. But that would change only very little about the siege (and the behavior of the besieged person itself).
I also know that fantasy castles are quite often more similar to a city, but my points would still hold.

DrHouse93

  • Elronds Berater
  • **
  • Beiträge: 336
Wow, I didn't know I would have caused such an horrified reaction to you, Gnomi  :D

Anyway, I admit I've been very vague about sieges, but when I conceived the idea I was mainly thinking about the "starving the castle" tactic. Of course, all the implications you rightly pointed out can't be applied and implemented to the game for obvious reasons

Unfortunately, putting a range in the ability is the only way to prevent the player to use it offensively rather than how it's meant to be used: defensively. Of course, I considered the ideas of small skirmishes and sorties outside the fortress just to thwart the enemy's efforts and recover from being cornered, so that's why I specified the ability can be activated in a certain range from the fortress, rather than just inside it

But again, given the buffs it would grant, it shouldn't be activated freely: otherwise, players will first of all use it thoughtlessly most of the times, but also can abuse it. The ability is intended to increase the chance of survival and comeback of a cornered player, but in order to not abuse it the radius from the fortress is necessary :)

(unless another solution can be figured out, of course)

IgRAzm

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
   This is such a good topic, that very adequately adresses the issues with snowballing. I had written my first post about walls yesterday, and in truth one of the true reasons why I wanted something like that is because the players tend to snowball and gain unrivaled control of the map too easily - but indeed, it is a change that can't fix the snowballing on its own, at most it allows the defending player to take better fights and keep some of his settlements alive longer.

   I think the changes made in the latest patches had to have improved the situation since 3 years ago, but the problem didn't truly cease. I'd say I got inspired a lot by this and the other discussions, so I thought it would be better to try revive an old thread with my ideas.

   Well, my first correction for the modern patch situation is this: the economy clearly was corrected already by the 4.5.5 patch, to account for the snowballing situation. Additionally, the command limit system was changed in favor of citadel research - it too doesn't require direct changes now. So I will focus on the other three points: the spell book, the experience and the troops.

Still, some words can be said about the economical domination of the winning player. I think there's no need for more global nerfs of economy, in fact I think army upkeep scenario (whether through making extra troops sap your resources slowly or by making them reduce economic buildings effeciency) wouldn't make for a good dynamics change, no matter how well balanced or severe would be the numbers. Among other things it could promote counter-intuitive scenarios like selling your troops at the citadel just to buy new ones before siege. If we don't try that approach, there's not much left to do other than weaking the winning player's army. But I think a bit more nuanced option presents itself, that has its roots in basically all the snowballing counters, but would be more easy to comprehend for the players.

   Victory Dilemma
   This is the collective name of the debuffs that may affect the winning player's army. The debuffs would be explained in the spell row in game, at the bottom of it, the same way the Sauron leveling information gets presented for Mordor; and in even more detail in the citadel, with faction-dependant story excerpts put in. The debuffs will have three tiers of severity: from a Minor Victory, from a Decisive Victory, and from a Glorious Victory. The level of victory depends on the difference between the winner (or their team's, combined) filled command points and the enemy (or their team's, combined). Rather than using a fixed amount, it uses the percentages: the winner has to have at least 50%, 100%, or 150% more army than the enemy, respectively. Also, the Victory Dilemma only applies if one player loses a lot of the army while not having resources to rebuild it - there is a shared value that each command points gets equated to and then compared to the losing player's collected resources (something like 1500 per 100 CP).
To make it more interesting, I also thought of the narrative reasonings behind the debuffs. They could be seen in the citadel, in Victory Dilemma tab.

   A minor Victory Dilemma
   A minor victory has a drastic cost for the losing player generally, and it is very often the beginning of a snowball growth. However we can't punish the winner too badly yet. The Dilemma debuffs have different appearences for different factions in the names and descriptions, but function the same between them. The debuffs applied will only depend on the conditions of a victory. The negative effects on your units don't apply in your camps and castles, with exception of the command points increase, so if the enemy actually manages to recover so much that he becomes a threat to your base, you can defend without as big a disadvantage as you would have when beseiging them yourself.
 
Possible debuffs:

   1)Indecision of the troops

Conditions: Previously, the winner had killed the most enemy troops through using their heroes.

Narrative reasoning (the story behind the situation; in this example, for the Rohan faction): The people of Rohan are in majority not warriors, and even the Rohirrim ride in the name of their peace, not for destruction's sake. Hardly any of them seen so much death in their lives as during these battles. Your heroes had done much, but to win the war, the countrymen also must be convinced that this is definitely their fight, and no one else's.

Debuffs: The heroes receive 75% less experience from the nearby units' kills (personal kills aren't affected). The regular (non-elite or heroic) units have -15% armor and damage. The regular units fill +15% command points. The spell points generate 15% longer and the spells recharge 15% longer.

Resolutions: You get access to a research "Celebration" in the citadel, cost - 900, and can only be researched if you have a hero of a level 3+ in the castle/camp. Celebration takes two minutes, and after it ends, your citadel gain an aura that removes the negative effects of the Victory Dilemma from the units that return to your castle or camp, and it also fixes the spellbook.

Commentary: I've decided that it's more interesting to debuff the player army in parts rather than whole. Instead of going after the most useful combatants, I think it makes for more interesting gameplay to actually promote the winner to use the most effecient thing for him. That would make the more active player want to keep fighting rather than wait out for his control over the map to give him an even bigger advantage. Indeed, after winning a fight, the winner that wants to push the advantage will be at a risk, as both his army and spellbook will be weaker than normally. And to take home the idea of heroes needing the rest of the army to be effective, under the debuff they are only as effective as normally when fighting alone - the player may try to protect the conquered territory with just heroes. This is what this dilemma is about - tempting the winner to decide if he can accept a risk to his dominating position in a new confrontation. That, or the alternative of giving the enemy quite a lot of time to recover by celebrating the victory at home with their whole army. Losing settlements is easy and when your enemy has 3+ minutes of allowance, he has a real chance to turn the tide. If the winner completely ignores the vulnerability of his troops, his advance might simply get overwhelmed by the defender, who's army may grow more slowly at first, but doesn't require extra pantry researches at the citadel - researches that further delay the possibility of the winning army to recover at the celebration.

   2)Indecision of the command

Conditions: Previously, the winner had killed the most enemies via their regular units.

Narrative reasoning (for Gondor faction): The troops under your command are overtaken with pride and contempt for the enemy. Many wish for a full-on attack, to rid this land of the foulness at once. But your advisors and some commanders have a different opinion on things. Maybe this was all a distraction and the enemy had planned a surprise attack, that you wouldn't be able to deflect if you chose an assault? "Additional scouting and research is required", - this is their council.

Debuffs: The units receive 75% less experience from the heroes killing enemies nearby. The heroes have -15% to armor and damage, and fill +30% command points. The spell points generate 15% longer and the spells recharge 15% longer.

Resolutions: A research "Military Meeting" is enabled in the citadel, and can be researched if there is at least one batallion of level 3+ in the base. While researching, the spells are unavailable. After finishing, the citadel gains an aura that removes the Dilemma debuff from the nearby heroes, and the spellbook is fixed.

Commentary: Similarly to the previous Dilemma, the regular army can be quite vulnerable without heroes. It is an option to choose a squad and at the same time keep the army in the map for control, but of course that is a serious risk that the winning player takes, as he on top of it all can't help himself with spells for 2 minutes. Or you may of course attack properly, ignoring the debuffs to the heroes and spells, but a siege at a disadvantage may also prove disastrous, with the defending player having walls or towers, and getting more experience and spell points than you do.

   3)Distrust and preconceptions

Conditions: The player had killed the most enemies through using the spellbook/units coming from spellbook.

Narrative reasoning (for Mordor faction): The orcs have their own view of the dominion of Sauron over Middle-earth, and regardless of how little He would be concerned with their thoughts, their actions have direct effect on the battles. In particular, they don't seem to like the easterlings taking any fame and loot from the battles that are predominately fought by the orcs.

Debuffs: The heroes and regular units receive -15% to attack and armor, fill +15% command points and gain -25% experience in battle.

Resolutions: A research "Lessons of the Messengers" gets available in the citadel, and requires a batallion of regular troops and a hero to be at the base, and both must be level 2 at least. The slavemasters and messengers of Sauron give them, and everyone else visiting the base later, good lessons on what will be done to them if they don't cooperate at war to fight for the master (imagine there are cages with tortured orcs for show, dead or still living).

   I imagine there might be other debuffs types, but I haven't came up with more yet.
Decisive and Glorious Victory Dilemmas are mostly just boosted versions of the Minor Dilemmas (like, 15% armor and dmg reduction become 30% or 50% respectively), though maybe there could be additional restrictions such as reduced sizes of leadership auras or more weaknesses for unit types/heroes around particular unit types/heroes. For bigger wins, larger summs of money must be used for the celebrations and such, taking longer time and requiring more experienced and respected warriors to perform. I should also add that all these dilemmas would be known to the losing player too - in the citadel there are written both your own dilemmas and your enemy's status at the time. So as a defending player you would know which units are more vulnerable at this time, if you just keep track of that info.

   So, does anyone else think that the games need something at least similar to this to counteract the snowballing? I don't think there's many options other than nerfing the winning player in some way. The debuffs may seem artificial and maybe they are a little too much, but at least I think they strike against the core issue. The armies, when they win, do so very strikingly, but that happens because of certain units getting just a slight upperhand - the gap just grows very rapidly. If the winning player has to ease his grip on the opponent, at least for a few minutes, I think the games could get more results that are less clear after just the first main engagement. And there's also the factor of players who decide to not let the enemy have any breather - depending on how the feature gets balanced, it could be that either strategy gets equally appealing (or unappealing, more likely), but in result there will be games that have tension, frantic counterattacks, sieges with focuses on the most important targets such as citadel or unit productions. And I'm sure that fighting back an enemy who overextended, snatching that victory from jaws of defeat, would be immensely satisfying.

The_Necromancer0

  • Edain Team
  • Beschützer des verbotenen Weihers
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 1.528
  • There is evil there that does not sleep
This is quite a post, and you have some interesting ideas. The main issue is that most of these are impossible from a technical point of view. There is no way to keep track of the proposed conditions and no efficient way to implement the resolutions.

Perhaps a good first step would be identifying more thoroughly the issues you still see with snowballing. You state three issues but don't explain them, the reader is left to try and figure out why you see them as issues.

A second step would be trying to work the other way around, instead of trying to punish a player for winning, you should incentivize the losing player to endure the siege. What we saw in the first few months of 4.5 is that map control mattered so little that entire factions would simply clump in their base and slowly build up over time. If a player is punished for killing enemy troops than they will instead focus on taking out buildings and sieging down the base while avoiding direct contact with the enemy.
Come chat Edain on Discord: https://discord.gg/CMhkeb8
Questions on the Mod? Visit the Official Wiki: http://edain.wikia.com/

IgRAzm

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
This is quite a post, and you have some interesting ideas. The main issue is that most of these are impossible from a technical point of view. There is no way to keep track of the proposed conditions and no efficient way to implement the resolutions.

Thanks. Yea, I guess I suspected it might be, that's a pity. I'll have to rethink them ofc.

Perhaps a good first step would be identifying more thoroughly the issues you still see with snowballing. You state three issues but don't explain them, the reader is left to try and figure out why you see them as issues.

I guess I can explain them myself, but the thing is, I mostly agreed with the OP's definitions. Though certainly things changed since those patches - I tried to account for the differences, but the tendency of snowballing, that seems so hard to fix, perhaps not in completely the same shape but it eventually came back I guess.

A second step would be trying to work the other way around, instead of trying to punish a player for winning, you should incentivize the losing player to endure the siege. What we saw in the first few months of 4.5 is that map control mattered so little that entire factions would simply clump in their base and slowly build up over time. If a player is punished for killing enemy troops than they will instead focus on taking out buildings and sieging down the base while avoiding direct contact with the enemy.

This is where, I think, may simply be that our different perspectives on the situation coming into play (at least partially). Because honestly I don't think that punishing for achivements is bad. In fact I think an actually skilled player might prefer to get challenged after his initial success more and more - that's a progression that is shared by almost all good singleplayer games for example. While my idea for challenging a winner may be a bit stampled on top of gameplay (let's ignore for now that it can't be done - consider it an overall idea), the alternative sometimes seems to be nothing for the defender left to do. Thinking of ways to make competing players unable to exploit the system is the harder part - I know that in execution even a really nice-looking concept might prove non-functional. And truly, the siege instruments are one such exploit for my system, I suppose. I didn't count them in my Dilemmas for a reason - they seem vulnerable without army support, so maybe they could be theoretically taken down even by defender, in the maneuvers that happen if the attacker decides to go home.

What's the most wrong, IMO, with the situation when a winner snowballs and prepares for a siege, is that the defender can't move out at all to regain any bit of advantage. His army is too doomed, and the attacker risks too little.

I really don't try to be harsh to Edain balance in the way it is - for example, the existance of inner and outer resource upgrades is one of the things that MIGHT help a player to prepare to a siege enough to actually have a decent resource gain to compete, maybe to find a window when enemy transitions into something expensive. Maybe they could be tweaked somehow but the general idea probably improves the defender's chance quite a bit if they are used properly

But I for now don't see how to make the defender want to remain besieged. A defender is blocked from any activity outside of defending there. I mean... There would need to be such large bonuses from staying in a castle for defender to actually see a point in statically enduring. TBH, one of the reasons I preferred to nerf attacker this way is powercreep issue - the heroes already level quickly, the battles of big armies create a lot of experience and spell points - if we simply make defender just stronger and stronger for staying alive on a small chunk of territory, it will make for another kind of stalemate, on the defending castle's area. It just doesn't make sense that a big area that one has control over doesn't give sufficient power to overcome the enemy eventually.

That's my understanding of the point in temporary debuffs - it is a window that the defender can make use of. At least it's not too rigid. If the attacker is sure in his advantage, he doesn't have to go back home (or order some of his important squads there), but the defender will definitely have some things that are objectively stronger in the arsenal. My point is that if we don't add some motivation for the attacker to both attack and to retreat from enemy castle in SOME way, there probably won't be an organic way to make comebacks possible with both players on close (and high) skill levels. Weakening the attacker means he perhaps will avoid attacking for a time, but that is temporary. If that makes for a situation of pendilum swinging from one player to another multiple times over game - GOOD! I think that is better than what happens now. And I think the players would still care about their settlements - after they return from the base they would have to fix and recover them, their enemy wouldn't let them just stay home and build army. I think a most likely way how the games with good players would go if my ideas end up functioning successfully in some form, is that one player for a time gains initiative, then another overtakes it, then their primary heroes reach 7-10 lvls, then the initiative changes again once or twice, and the final siege, with 10 point spells, will depend on the decisions of both the attacker - who has a bunch of the map taken, but has to keep his enemy occupied, while trying to win as soon as possible because sieging a castle at that stage isn't easy, as his enemy had time and resources from previous winnings of territory to build up both siege and men, and also the attacker has the debuffs, that might mean a less frequent spellbook and weaker squads. At that point a lot would depend on siege engines.

I should probably add that one of the reasons why I think dominating attacker needs to be debuffed is that in this game too much is decided by squad experience, and in other strategies the defender has a line of reinforcements, while here any reinforcing squads die in 1 hit by the veterans generally.

IgRAzm

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Alright, while I have to say that I hoped for a continuing discussion, it doesn't make me feel that bad that it didn't get a continuation right away - after looking around the forums a bit more I got more "intel" to realize how complex, long-lived and deceivingly "easy" may be the issue we are trying to tackle. And in summer and while the tournament is taking place, I perfectly understand that not many would find the time to read my post.

I think it's alright for now if I don't understand the entire situation around the balance of gameplay when it comes to aspects that affect the issue of snowballing (there got to be so many of them). Also it seems that my ideas to fix it, at least to an extent, are significantly different from the ones coming before. I think it may be worth it to hold onto these concepts just yet.

I think I've realised better what mechanics the modding allows to edit now, even if through assumption and looking at what seems possible. So here I'll share an edited (and shortened) version of Victory Dilemmas. I had to really rethink, how the effects could work with a leveling system rather than kills, and this is the best compromise of my mechanics and crutches that I've managed so far. I may add here that if it's impossible to check whether a unit has certain lvl when using ability on him, these parts may be removed, but this would definitely have to be followed by a rebalance of the celebration times, and maybe other things.

   Victory Dilemma
   This is the collective name of the debuffs that may affect the winning player's army, meant to slow down the growth of an attacker's strength. The Dilemmas are casted by the losing player. In order to cast a Dilemma, the player needs his citadel to be of a certain level, and to have a lot of empty command limit (300/600/900) (and to have less than a certain amount of money, if that's possible; that would be 3000/6000/9000). While they are free and almost instant, they make it impossible to cast spellbook spells for a time (I thought this would further reduce chances of players using these in a wrong time). The citadel levels like any unit, but more slowly (or, if that's impossible, it requires multiple levels each time) and with a global range from where it gains experience; the level acts as a threshold for the earlygame here. New levels allow to cast stronger dilemmas (Minor, Serious, and Severe), but as that also requires more command points, they can only be used after the largest battles. When a Dilemma is casted, the casting player's CP aren't filled up (only for a moment, as a dummy unit gets spawned), but the citadel can't cast a dilemma again for a while, and for longer if the player cased a stronger Dilemma. Different Dilemmas may be chosen, to make different types of the opponent's units more vulnerable. The Dilemmas are meant to force the winning player to make a decision, whether he wants to attack or to retreat back home; the combat debuffs also don't work on the enemies when they are inside their base. The Dilemmas can be cleared by the opponents' citadel with a corresponding ability, that costs money and takes time to apply.
   When a Dilemma is casted in a team game, every affected player gains an option in the citadel to take the challenge for himself, freeing his allies from the dilemma instantly (but not from the additional dilemmas, if they are casted by multiple players in a row - a player having a dilemma won't be able to take another for himself).
   This info, and the details on the individual Dilemmas that you may cast and that got casted on you are explained in the citadel. A dilemma being cast is highlighted with a message on the top of the screen.

Possible debuffs (Minor Dilemmas):

   1)Indecision of the troops

Narrative reasoning (the story behind the situation; in this example, for the Rohan faction): The people of Rohan are in majority not warriors, and even the Rohirrim ride in the name of their peace, not for destruction's sake. Hardly any of them seen so much death in their lives as during these battles. Your heroes had done much, but to win the war, the countrymen also must be convinced that this is definitely their fight, and no one else's.

Debuffs (unchanged): The heroes receive 75% less experience from the nearby units' kills (personal kills aren't affected). The regular (non-elite or heroic) units have -15% armor and damage. The regular units fill +15% command points. The spell points generate 15% longer and the spells recharge 15% longer.

Resolutions: You get access to an ability "Celebration" in the citadel, cost - 900. Needs to target a hero of level 3+ inside the castle/camp. Celebration takes two minutes, and after it ends, your citadel gain an aura that removes the negative effects of the Victory Dilemma from the units that return to your castle or camp, and it also fixes the spellbook.

   2)Indecision of the command

Narrative reasoning (for Gondor faction): The troops under your command are overtaken with pride and contempt for the enemy. Many wish for a full-on attack, to rid this land of the foulness at once. But your advisors and some commanders have a different opinion on things. Maybe this was all a distraction and the enemy had planned a surprise attack, that you wouldn't be able to deflect if you chose an assault? "Additional scouting and research is required", - this is their council.

Debuffs (unchanged): The units receive 75% less experience from the heroes killing enemies nearby. The heroes have -15% to armor and damage, and fill +30% command points. The spell points generate 15% longer and the spells recharge 15% longer.

Resolutions: An ability "Military Meeting" at a cost of 900 is enabled in the citadel, with it you can target a batallion of level 3+ inside the base. This ability makes the spells unavailable for 2 minutes. After the two minutes pass, the citadel gains an aura that removes the Dilemma debuff from the nearby heroes, and the spellbook gets fixed.

   3)Distrust and preconceptions

Narrative reasoning (for Mordor faction): The orcs have their own view of the dominion of Sauron over Middle-earth, and regardless of how little He would be concerned with their thoughts, their actions have direct effect on the battles. In particular, they don't seem to like the easterlings taking any fame and loot from the battles that are predominately fought by the orcs.

Debuffs (unchanged): The heroes and regular units receive -15% to attack and armor, fill +15% command points and gain -25% experience in battle.

Resolutions: An ability "Lessons of the Messengers" with a cost of 900 gets available in the citadel, it can target a hero or a battalion of lvl 2+, but to work, it requires either of them to be in range of the citadel. The slavemasters and messengers of Sauron give them, and everyone else visiting the base after 2 minutes pass, good lessons on what will be done to them if they don't cooperate at war to fight for the master (imagine there are cages with tortured orcs for show, dead or still living).

   How would the Dilemmas look like for the caster:

   Minor indecision of the troops


Your opponent's heroes are unaffected by this dilemma. Your opponent's troops have slightly reduced armor and damage, fill extra command points, and share less fighting experience with the heroes. Your opponent gains spell points and rechanges his spells slower. One of his heroes may cancel these effects near the allied citadel in some time, and the troops nearby will completely recover.

   Serious indecision of the command

Your opponent's regular troops are unaffected by this dilemma. Your opponent's heroes have noticably reduced armor and damage, fill much more command points, and share no fighting experience with units. Your opponent gains spell points and rechanges his spells noticably slower. One of his experienced battalions may cancel these effects near the allied citadel in some time, and the heroes nearby will completely recover.

   Severe distrust and preconceptions

Your opponent's spellbook and spellbook units aren't affected by this dilemma. Your opponent's army (with exception of elite and heroic battalions) becomes severely inefficient, losing significant armor and damage, filling much more command points, and gaining much less experience in battle. One experienced hero and one experienced battalion may cancel these effects near the allied citadel in some time, and the army nearby will completely recover.

   So, the core mechanical difference of this change of Victory Dilemmas is that the defending player now chooses to apply a Dilemma - he chooses both the time and the affected army composition. While making the mechanic require more attention from the defending player (with previous one he would only need to check which units get more vulnerable), it does make the attacker more vulnerable to targeting of his more useful soldiers. For that reason I decided to make higher level Dilemmas less strong, so now Serious and Severe Dilemmas have the 15% debuffs turn into 22% and 30% respectively, and the other values would also progress with ~ 50% increase from the original value per level. But I didn't change the debuffs themselves yet, because while the system was designed initially as reactive to the events, I think now that a winning player would still have heroes with higher levels, even if the enemy decides to debuff his troops that seem to make the biggest impact. While that is a point I might reconsider, for now I think that it at least encourages players to engage with each other more - if you already win and can't even level a hero, it might be that you just were lucky to get in this position, and anyways, heroes are cool and strong, and more varied skirmishes would be preferrable. But that is defenitely a secondary reason for the system, when compared to the opportunity for the defending player to have an extra chance for manevuer after a big battle. With large cooldowns added to the Victory Dilemmas, this feature would be now like an extra spell, that every player would save for the last moment - something to both slow down the game's pace temporarily and to make a defense of a castle more viable, if used at the right time.
   In the end someone might ask "what happens if both players cast Dilemmas on each other?" I think that this sounds like a valid situation, and tbh I think it would be kinda funny when that happens in game - both players think that the enemy will now attack and push, when in reality they both are unsure who would be preparing to push after this big bloody battle. The outcome would almost always be reciprocal celebrations, I think, with the game going as normal afterwards, for a while without the new Dilemmas, though that one would depend on which level of Dilemma were casted - the lower levels do recharge faster. But the more important thing is that these situations wouldn't be common at higher levels because casting is very quick and there's usually no need to apply the dilemmas in advance.
« Letzte Änderung: 18. Aug 2021, 15:59 von IgRAzm »