[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] General Suggestions

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

<< < (3/3)

The_Necromancer0:
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.

IgRAzm:

--- Zitat von: The_Necromancer0 am 16. Aug 2021, 19:00 ---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.
--- Ende Zitat ---

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


--- Zitat von: The_Necromancer0 am 16. Aug 2021, 19:00 ---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.
--- Ende Zitat ---

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.


--- Zitat von: The_Necromancer0 am 16. Aug 2021, 19:00 ---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.
--- Ende Zitat ---

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:
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.

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[*] Vorherige Sete