General Concepts and feedback

[TheMostBurning]

Discuss here about your concept to improve this faction,and tell the bugs you found in your experience of playing.


Who never said "What the h***,lame mtf noob"(maybe older players have a better control )when fighting against a camper?Well,even though there have been tons of proposals in the balance thread,this is an issue that still provides cronical headhache.

Today,i crafted a new,little,and huge as well,proposal.I know that this would change significantly the game mechanics,but i think it is a good,and needed,idea,so i post it.

Here it is.In edain,losing a fort usually means losing a base(not always,but it is
likely).Edain deleted many sneak attack opportunities that existed in 2.01,so when you have lost your fort,you are probably in trouble overall.This means that you haven't many units to defend yorself,and not much money.
In this situation,paying 5000 to rebuild your fort is a punch in the stomach.With bfme2,EA introduced the free fort building.You could build every fort you wanted,everywhere,but at a cost of 5000.The first,the second,the third,5000.
This is what i'd like to change.
When you have no fort,you have no outpost on the map,you are starting to colonize that territory and,eventually,fight for it.So,your first base should cost less,3000,and the enemy can't recognise you are building it.The second fort is the one you need to start expanding(this is obviously notional,but if you have mordor,then you really need 2 forts to unleash its full potential,maybe 3 with the new version),so it should cost more,4000,and as you no longer have a little base,the enemy should know you are building it at 75% (e.g.,with the usual "it's the enemy fortress").With "the enemy should know you are building it",i mean that he can see the fort under construction(but nothing else around it).The third,the fourth and the fifth forts are the bastions you will build only if you have the upper hand,so they should cost more,as you will probably have the map control,and the enemy will know quickly where they are.They cost 5000,6000,7000,the 3rd is revealed at 50%,the 4th at 25%,the 5th at the start of the building process.1th fort takes 3 minutes to build,2nd 4,3rd 5,4th 6,5th 7.


This would make more sense than 5 forts all costing 5000(i let notice,that the overall price is still 25000),the more the forts are needed,the easier they are built,and vice-versa.It descourages camping,and it no longer allows to build hidden backup forts.
It's a huge change,i know,but these threads are where changes come up.
I'm waiting your thoughts.

[Bav]

Sounds good

[leander7777]

I really like how you combined both our ideas.  
However, I still think that towers are also a large contribution to the bunkering issue, hence they are prohibited or limited to 1-2, in most competitive online games.
It's a real shame that the only mean for true expansion is banned due to a problem in the balance between the attack and defence of units, namely that defence>offence (by a large margin). I play a lot of company of heroes and therefore, perhaps I have a difference view on expanding and map control, but, nonetheless, it shouldn't be prohibited.
Thus my suggestion, as copied directly from Moddb, is:

As for towers, I'm not really sure... I definitely think that their price should increase, especially for garrisonable towers. I think 900 and 1400, respectively. I also think that towers should be more vulnerable to heavy infantry and should only provide a slightly increased range and signficant armor bonus... not invulnerability.

Ultimately, I think making towers more expensive and omitting the perfect armor bonus they grant, while also making fortresses a more expensive and risky affair, would be a feasible attempt to potentially lessen the hate players have toward bunkerers. These suggestions are, however, just food for thought. You may interpret them as you wish. I just mean to call upon the severity of the problem. I personnally think a large problem exists when players have to agree on self-established rules and parameters. I also think that it's a pity that fundamental forms of expansioned are banned. To be frank, solving this problem would provide far richer strategies than simply overhauling Uruk captains or elrond in ring form.

Pertaining to your comment on Moddb:
"The main problem is when you have map control and you still can't beat the camper opponent.Without map control,he won't produce many resources,so 8000 is simply too much.The most expensive things in edain are smaug(6000,excellent price) and grond(8000,which i think it is too much);these are both stuff you buy only if you can afford it(you will be able to afford smaug anyway :b)7000 money for the 5th fort are good,if you have map control,you won't care a lot about 7000 or 10000 resources."
But, that is exactly the problem :S
You don't want the camper to have a lot of resources, otherwise there'd be no reason to expand, especially when you consider how much harder it is to defend a vast empire
A camper is not supposed to have the financial means for the purchasing of a 2nd or even 3rd fortress. In the current game, they generally do and when they do the game drags or even stalls....

[TheMostBurning]

4000 and 5000 are prohibitive if he has a limited economy,but they are more reasonable than 8500 If all forts would cost so much,a player that would lose a fortress would lose the game


About towers.I have an idea.
Most times,in normal games,towers are used to increase sight,and to control certain points of the map with a mini-base(statues,wells,towers).When a player exceeds,he is called camper.Garrisoned towers are useful to protect the main base from sneak attacks or summons.It's likely you haven't garrisoned towers in every strategical point.
So,I speak too much.
There should be 2 kinds of towers,"Watch Tower" and "Defence Tower".
The first isn't garrisonable,has great line of sight,shorter buildtime,weaker armor and lesser health.Its arrows can be upgraded,just like normal mordor towers.
The second is garrisonable,has little line of sight,longer buildtime,stronger armor and greater health.This can't be upgraded and doesn't fire any arrow by itself,so it must be garrisoned.
The watch tower can be built everywhere and it's unlimited.The defence tower can be built in radius 500 from the fort,there is a maximum limit of 5.
WT is useful for map control,while WD is used for base defence.

[leander7777]

"4000 and 5000 are prohibitive if he has a limited economy,but they are more reasonable than 8500  If all forts would cost so much,a player that would lose a fortress would lose the game."
Well the first additional fortress you build would cost 6000. 3000 is not a lot of money, considering that you are a camper and are therefore allocating all your resources into building a defence mechanism. Whereas, 6000 is a lot more and forces you to expand, prior to purchasing your second fortress.

About the tower:
Interesting, I like the idea, especially, your idea about a maximum radius. I think WTs should cost 600 and DTs 900.

[TheMostBurning]

With "first" i mean the one you normally start with,so the first additional,the second,would cost 4000.The fact is,that 5000 is too much for a player that has 2(or even 1)builder and some RB and PB left.3000 is reasonable for a player in trouble,while as you start building addictional fortresses they have to be more expensive,so the ideal price would be 5000,as it must be prohibitive.But on the other hand,the second fort,sometimes,isn't just a way to camp,but it offers many advantages(superweapons,builders,heroes)that aren't intended for passive defence.
In other words,the second fort is,sometimes,acceptable.An example : in late game,dwarves rely on the inn,with fire arrows,KD veterans and mithirl mail;mordor instead,doesn't receive great help from the inn,while its potential is in its minifactions(the minas morgul+dol guldur+the new cirith ungol combo is hard to obtain,but extremely deadly).Some factions need addictional forts(think about lothlorien).So,6000 is just too much.The good price,i think,is between 4000 and 5000.The other 3 should increase cost +1000,+2000,+3000,but i admit that there could be a significant difference between the second and the third(maybe 4000-6000).

[leander7777]

Yeh, but a 2nd fortress is should really only be considered mid game and at which point 6000 really isn't that much..
However, I would agree that Lorien's alternate fortress should be cheaper, perhaps 3000, as they currently have a really hard time expanding. Especially when an inn is hard to reach.
 

[TheMostBurning]

After seeing how the new mordor fortress system will work,i have to change

Yesterday and today i played 4 games to test my idea relating to the situation in which a player loses a fort.Basically,i destroyed my fort

The worst issue a player has to face when he loses his fortress,is that he can't recruit any more builders(this,however,doesn't apply to dwarves and isengard,that have a more camp-based gameplay).
So,his first priority is to protect builders,as if he loses all of them,he simply lost the game.This obviously means that the first thing he wants to build is the fort.
It isn't simple,however.As the enemy managed to destroy the fortress,the camp has,probably,been heavily hurt overall.Furthermore,he must be careful when expanding his economy,as when the builders are out of the base,they are very easily killable.
Considering all this,i definitively concluded that 3000 is really,really apropriate,as long as we aren't in late game,where it is easily gathered.The only problem is late game ,but i have no real idea to solve this.
Where's the change then?I agree with the secondfort price 6000.However,costs should be 3000,6000,6500,7000,7500.The differnce between the first and the second is huge,much bigger than the one between the others.This is however logical.When you build a second fort,you basically start camping,thus the cost must be prohibitive,but on the other hand,if you want to camp,you will anyway,so the prices should differ only a little.Everything else remains equal.

Edit : Firt fort cost 4000.

[TheMostBurning]

I don't know anything about modding,so if these concepts aren't feasible,tell me.

I think these 3 would significantly make micromanagement easier.

Shortcuts

Ok,now you are going to tell me that it isn't worth the work,as most players simply don't use them.
I think that every member of the team knows how useful Shortcuts can be,and im sure you will agree with me that they would be very useful.
It should be feasible,as in edain 1 many new features have the related shortcuts.

Multiple buildings selection

Who never had to recruit the same unit from several buildings?Who didn't hate to click 5 times on different goblin caves?
By clicking E all buildings of the selected type on the screen are selected,by double-clicking E on all the map.Obviously,units can be recruited from all buildings clicking only once.Buildings that don't reach the unit requirement,simply don't recruit that unit.
This should also work by selecting multiple buildings manually.
Multiple selected buildings,allow to set multiple rallypoints with a single click.

Building waypoint

Consider Unit waypoint and Building rallypoint.Unite them.You have Building waypoint.
By clicking Alt + right click,you can set a waypoint for units recruited from that building.Multiple buildings can also share this waypoint.