External economy

[Le Sournois]

Dear Edain team,

In these days when you show the new concept of Isengard buildings which looks pretty amazing, I want to talk about a small issue I never fully understood concerning the Forged Tools for external buildings.

When a player update its external economy, it is because he bets he will keep his advantage, and have enough external plots to get more money than with the internal economy.

But sometimes, he will lose some external buildplots which are harder to defend, Furthermore, the arrow upgrade for the level 3 external buildplot is quite weak and unable to help defend every settlements, especially since strucural damage do not have bonus against units with heavy armors.

The price to build another settlement is now of 400 instead of 200 when they are level 1, so that it takes quite a long time before the player get back the money spent and even more for the revenues to overtake the ones of a simple level 1 economy building.

And there is more : when they are of higher level, the external buildplots takes longer to build, so that their first revenue comes later that one of a level 1 building.


So that taking back a level 3 settlement is twice punitive compared to a level 1 settlement : you spend more to get it and it takes longer before giving its first revenues 

I like the fact there is some risk when updating our external buildplots, but there should be a sufficient short term interst when we rebuild it if we lose them.

There is then my suggestion :



-keep the price as it is for now 200/300/400 but change the buildtime to make it more advantageous when the building is level 3 and give it an interest even if the price raises.

-Make the building of level 1 economic settlement from a base 20 to a 25 seconds buldtime

-Make the base building time of level 2 economic settlement to 20 seconds instead of 30.

-Make the level 3 external economic settlements with a base 10 seconds instead of 40 seconds buildtime and give the arrow from the defense the "cavalry ranged" type of damage instead of structural one to make it more efficient against units with heavy armor, as a simple building without further defense around it should defend itself better than a small tower.


I wish you the best for this end of summer.

[Elendils Cousin 3. Grades]

There are two main reasons why external economy buildings get more expensive as their level increases. One is snowballing, the other has to do with rewarding defensive playstyles.

The price to build another settlement is now of 400 instead of 200 when they are level 1, so that it takes quite a long time before the player get back the money spent and even more for the revenues to overtake the ones of a simple level 1 economy building.

And there is more : when they are of higher level, the external buildplots takes longer to build, so that their first revenue comes later that one of a level 1 building.

This change was implemented to reward players for successfully defending their settlements instead of running around the map and constantly trading one settlement for another.

While permanent economy upgrades offer a lot of advantages, something that does get lost with them is the incentive to defend your structures. With the old, individual upgrades for economy structures, you'd really want to defend your settlements that had upgrades because rebuilding those would take additional time and money, on top of losing the commandpoints or income. With permanent economy upgrades, these advantages are back right away. Increasing buildcost and buildtime of economy buildings when you research Forged Tools means that harassment and strong pressure still feels worthwile and still has a strong impact, while at the same time protecting your settlement with your army instead of going on the offensive yourself can be a suboptimal choice.

Secondly, internal economy upgrades are much safer and less risky, you're right about that. On the other hand, internal buildplots are much rarer than external buildplots, so for many factions, these internal economy upgrades may only affect four or five economy buildings - compared to external upgrades, where you can easily have seven or eight in even games, or more than that in games where you are ahead.

If my external economy is at level 3, and yours is at level 1, I have a massive advantage. 50% more income overall is just an incredible amount of money! The increased buildtime and buildcost is meant to give you a chance to get back into the game. If we reduced the buildtime as you suggest, this effect would largely disappear. I don't think that would be a good change.


A beautiful end of the summer to you as well.

[Le Sournois]

I hope I am not annoying with my usual "Ah OK, but..."

Here, I understand I think better now why this upgrade works that way. But if your explanation has changed my point of view slightly, I still want to discuss it a bit more.

On the other hand, internal buildplots are much rarer than external buildplots

Yes, however all settlements are not economy building and it's hard to imagine a game with Gondor without signal fire or a game with Mordor without Cirith Ungol barracks even if it can happens, but those buildings are really impôrtant, thus they is often one settlement at least used at non economy purpose.

The increased buildtime and buildcost is meant to give you a chance to get back into the game.

That is true if I made the safer choice and upgraded my internal economy. Then, I will indeed have a way to comeback and regain map control. However, if as you, I have done the bold choice to upgrade my external economy before being pushed back in my base, then with both the price and building time doubled, it will be even harder to regain map control than if my settlements were at level 1.


THE IDEA OF PROMOTING DEFENSIVE GAMEPLAY

This change was implemented to reward players for successfully defending their settlements instead of running around the map and constantly trading one settlement for another.

I like this idea indeed. It is true that if my suggestion was applied, it would last 2,28 minute approximatively for a level 3 building to overtake the economic production since it's construction while it's 3,28 for now, so it would make quite a big change and maybe lead to this trading of one settlement for one another.


STILL THE INTEREST OF A FASTER BUILDING TIME AND THE WAY TO DO IT WHILE MAINTAINING THE CURRENT BALANCE

Still, a faster building time for level 2 and even more for level 3 settlements would surely be a good idea. Why ? Because it gives an interest other than economy. It helps to map control, to defend effectively the settlements.

With a faster building time at level 3 especially, the player would get 2 advantages :

-the building will get hit points very quickly so it will be harder for the ennemy to destroy it while it's building which is often a slight blow when the building costs 400.
-If the settlement has been conquered in a zone of combat, it will be able to defend itself very shortly after being built by throwing arrows to the ennemy.

I really think those 2 elements would improve drastically the gameplay in two situations :

-the first in a pvp game I talked about above here, when all the players have upgraded their external economy, and one of them has been pushed back. If he has the possibility to pay for even one or two settlements, he will get some very short term value out of it which you need when you are in a comeback operation.

-in a pve game against the AI, ti would be a lot better because for now, in every interesting game, it is impossible to gain and control enough settlements, the Ai will always rush his heroes to force you to flee to your base, so that Forged Settler's Tools are very often useless in those game which is quite frustrating.

With short term-value out of your level 3 settlements, those upgrades would still be useful even in end game because for now, I always go straight to the ennemy castle without any care to the settlements.

I know that this game has been conceived for pvp games and not pve. However, you guys have done a huge job to update the AI, to make it as smart as possible, and you have done that really well. Some games against the AI are very cool and entertaining, so that improving the way upgrades work for pve games would make your work even more valuable.

And still, it would also improve pvp game.

HOW TO CONCILE ALL OF THIS ?

I will end by that. I agree, the current balance must not be distorted, but the balance you spoke about in your reply seems to concern the economy.

Why not then for the reasons I detailed above decreasing the building time for higher level settlements while even more increasing their cost ?

The economy balance would not be distorted while you would give short-term value (I insist on that term), for your level 3 settlements which they lack for now,

Why not 25/20/10 seconds of building time for a cost of 200/325/450 ? or even 200/350/500, it will also be better than now because what you would get with that is not a very strong eceonomy, for that you would still need to defend well your settlements and as you said in your answer, that issue I agree is important, but upgrading your external economy would bring you help to regain map control and to get back to the game !

Finally and I will end by that, one of my game partner sometimes says that upgrades are reasearched not quickly enough, it is a feeling that can be experienced by some players. This suggestion could bring more dynamism in the endgame, bring more intensity.

[Singollo]

With a faster building time at level 3 especially, the player would get 2 advantages :

-the building will get hit points very quickly so it will be harder for the ennemy to destroy it while it's building which is often a slight blow when the building costs 400.
-If the settlement has been conquered in a zone of combat, it will be able to defend itself very shortly after being built by throwing arrows to the ennemy.

Well, first, if you try to build a settlement building while the enemy is still in range to destroy it, I think it is your own fault. In war it is never common to build farms in the middle of a battle.
As for the second point, economy buildings are hardly meant to be able to defend themselves. The nerf of the building arrows was meant to make harassment easier and more rewarding.

In general, comeback situations are a very difficult thing to balance, as every advantage the player without map control would get, the player with map control would get even more. If you have been pushed back to your camp, the only real chance you have for a comeback is to inflict heavy casualties to your opponent's army at advantageous territory in combination with harassment to cripple their economy. For harassment, it is sometimes more effective to destroy a few settlements without retaking them.

I guess the only change to enable an economic comeback would be to make economy buildings incrementally more expensive, (e.g. a farm would be more expensive if you already have ten farms, than if you have only five), but I doubt it is technically possible to implement this.

As to the matches against the AI, their tendency to rush heroes is rather a weakness than a strength. From my experience, given enough starting resources, they often send five or six heroes without any troops, which are usually less effective than one or two heroes with a medium-sized army. The AI rarely retreats their heroes, even if severely wounded, which makes killing them much easier than against a human player. Also, if the AI builds a corps of heroes, they usually don't have many resources left, so if you manage to kill them, you will hardly face any resistance for a while, giving you time to gain map control and build a strong army to take down their camps.

[Le Sournois]

I am under the impression that my suggestion is quite unpopular in fact and my goal is not to be toxic so I will try a last time to explain my idea because I believe in it and afterwards, I will leave up this comment sections and let others have the last word, if they may.

As to the matches against the AI, their tendency to rush heroes is rather a weakness than a strength.

I should not have been specific about heroes on that issue. Let's say rather than there is always a threshold in terms of difficulty when you are on a small challenge because you put yourself some handicap or something like this, therefore you are forced to dug-in in your base and cannot play agressively.

If this is the case, if you are in a kind of hard game where you dug-in, then you will probably find the Forged Settler's Tools useless until the end of the game, that's indeed whats make me (relatively) sad. You willl better make a great offensive operation directly in their base or their outpost, maybe make some level 1 external building, that will be more effective that updating your economy and try to get a lot of settlements.

And a tool that is all the more useless the harder your game is... I don't know, that is not what I prefer but that's my point of view, I may be wrong.

Well, first, if you try to build a settlement building while the enemy is still in range to destroy it, I think it is your own fault. In war it is never common to build farms in the middle of a battle.

We are in a BFME game and in BFME a lot of buildings of various types have also defensive properties. I thinks it happens in a lot of games that there is a struggle for a settlement, and that we start building this settlements when the ennemy is still near.

Therefore the idea is still the same : short-term value. If we have purchased the Forged Settler's tools and have been pushed back to our base, at least we would get something to make up for the high cost of settlements in the short run.

And the fast building time is important because in 40 seconds, the battle have the time to transfer in another part of the map, while in 10 seconds, your armies and the ennemy armies are likely to be still near the zone.

As for the second point, economy buildings are hardly meant to be able to defend themselves. The nerf of the building arrows was meant to make harassment easier and more rewarding.

I don't think that because that defensive aspect was once overpowered, that just by taking a small step back, it would surely be unbalanced. Maybe my idea about the cavalry ranged type of damage is not the most opportune, OK then. But still, those arrows are doing almost nothing, it's like 4 individuals that are being shot down and that's all.

i don't want my suggestion to make it overpowered, I just want it to make it quite impactful and make the Forged Settlers Tools a bit more meaningful even when the control of settlements is lost; I repeat it, if we lose all our settlements, it is better to have our external economy to level 1 than to level 3, really I think the current system let room for improvements.

And if we cannot improve it economically because of What Elendil's Cousin talked about the economy balance which I agree with, the only other solution is to make it better for regaining map control.

For harassment, it is sometimes more effective to destroy a few settlements without retaking them.

Well, that's my point. Rather, it is my point that sometimes even without doing harassement, we don't get advantage in upgrading and then taking those settlements when they cost 400 and take almost 4 minutes to overtake the total profit of a level 1 farm that cost 200 unless there is something else advantageous that will help in the endgame.

I recall that the price of the settlements should be adjusted to the faster build time to maintain economy balance and maintain the usefulness of harassement.

My suggestion changes nothing to the need to get settlements from your ennemies. It doesn' make it more difficult. But once a building has been destroyed, then yes the ennemy if it gets it back will be more comfortable to do so than now, that's just that.

This concept of Forged Settler's Tools would be a better and faster building up, and I think that's fit Forged Settler's Tools.

The danger of putting all the rewards on harassement is also increasing the risk of stalemates. Yes, a return in fortune is nice, yes, a comback is spectacular and we like them, but what we like is comeback, games quite long, but not games that does not end.