[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] Discussion and Feedback

General Concepts and feedback

(1/2) > >>

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 :P)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 xD
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 :o If all forts would cost so much,a player that would lose a fortress would lose the game 8-|


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.

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[#] Nächste Seite