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)
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
) 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) EconomyThis 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 PointsThis 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
)
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-BookAnother 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) ExperiencePerhaps 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) TroopsThe 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.
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.
FinallyThis 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!