[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] General Suggestions

Melting the snowball, The five headed beast: Ideas to promote siege battles.

(1/3) > >>

Goodfella:
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!

Brisingr:
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:
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

NoldorSithLordsShipwright:
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:
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  :)

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[#] Nächste Seite