Builder combat tweaks

If it's not a good idea, it's hardly a "solution" to the problem. Sure the hitting may be random but you're still able to lay some hits with a support role. You're not even supposed to be going out, hand to hand fighting knights and archers, or even other builders as it is, so I think it's irrelevant to worry about how random the damage is for builders since you're not really even supposed to be going out there to fight as it is. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it no matter if sometimes it won't count the hits.

 

So you're trying to balance around noobs? Because when I see a keg as archer, it's already gone. Knight below me, jump on him, spam a few shots, pick up the keg, off to go blow up his team mates. Implementing a change where you can not move well, hold your shield up, or strike upon enemies would mean the only way to use a keg against a non-noob team (willing to die for a keg) would be to kill the /entire team/. I guess you could get the team organised in front of an enemy fort, light the keg, and have everyone defend, but if you see a keg, you focus the guy with a keg, plus you will have height advantage, and archers shooting the keg and enemies away which already happens.

And personally, I hate the idea of siege. Just stand in a cata or ballista, holding LMB until a bunch of enemies are dead and the base is destroyed? Boring. I like going in and destroying their base first-hand, whether it's a bomb arrow to the back of a flag base, keg on a tower or drilling my way through their base, that's what makes KAG fun for me.

 

I'm not suggesting that you balance "around" anyone, but more that you attempt to balance mechanics against one another, which is quite a feat in PvP games of any complexity. You simply think out the mechanics and rules, implement them, and test.

Then, you make changes based on your findings and analysis and test again.
Then, you make changes based on your findings and analysis and test again.
Then, you make changes based on your findings and analysis and test again.
Then, you make changes based on your findings and analysis and test again.

You get the idea. So, unless you think the game is the pinnacle of perfection in fun and balance, there is not much valid argument against making tweaks. The changes that will emerge in the meta-game are difficult to predict, and so you test. I know, you can try this stuff with mods, so that the community is not subjected to it. However, I have tried this extensively, and it is just not possible to get an adequate body of testing, because people won't join your modded server, and organizing an extensive series of testing sessions is not feasible. You may doubt it, but I ask you to take my word for it when I say that adequately testing balance using mods is highly impractical.

I do agree that fun times can be had raiding bases the non-siege way, but that isn't the crux of my point. I'm saying that building a good base is expensive and hard. Blowing it up is cheap and easy (by comparison).

 

If bases are hard to destroy, then the game becomes a stalemate nightmare. I find the game fun as it is, and if I didn't then I wouldn't play it. Major changes to the game make it worse - maybe the mechanics are better, but those who don't like change will leave, and in a small community, that's shit. See knight nerf, archer buff/nerf, builder nerf.

Also, as you can see by Gather, modded games are not always empty.

 

That modded game is an exception to the rule. It has been hyped ad infinitum on the forums, driving an unnatural amount of interest and traffic to it. Go ahead, try it. Host a server that's modded and see how many weeks it is before someone joins.

 

Give me the moneys to host said server and the mod to base it on and I'll see your challenge.

 

You said you've tried the testing example extensively but you really can't base how you test to how the devs test. It doesn't mean that you don't have a point.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 22, 2015 ---

Isn't it free to host a server aside from the other option?

 

Sorry for any lack of clarity. I was referring to PvP game testing in general in that post, and not specifically KAG testing. Thanks, @Thiamor!

 

And you like how the pickaxe is? And you love builder vs builder fights?

 

Why the fuck would the builder want to combat in the first place?

 

An archer is sneaking in their base?

 

Think he means it in the way for a builder to seek combat out as opposed to defensive purposes.

Legit reasoning though. Gotta stop them monkeys and their special arrows haha.

 

Yeah right back in classic builder was actually useful when building.
Now that buildings are useless, we need some other role for him
amrite

 

Builder is the biggest role in CTF, especially 5v5s. Shit builder = gg.

 

I like the way you want it to make sense. And definately love how it would bring more siegeweapons loaded with boulders and so on. You've made your point clear through the following comments.

Listen to this man!

And yeah the pickaxes could use a fix i agree but it appears it's a tricky thing to fix. So let's be patient

 

This hit box pick axe problem also effects the drill

 

I find if im lagging more than the other builder I don't take damage from most of their hits ie. a builder attacked me while I was infront of his flag tunneling in so he spammed the pickaxe and I spammed mine(no real strategy to this shitty combat)and he caught me off guard atfirst so he hit me twice and then after we were both spamming it we ended up killing each other(again lag did this)