1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hey Guest, is it this your first time on the forums?

    Visit the Beginner's Box

    Introduce yourself, read some of the ins and outs of the community, access to useful links and information.

    Dismiss Notice

My experience so far. Some suggestions.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Vania, Jun 4, 2011.

  1. Vania

    Vania Guest

    I've been having lots of fun with this game lately. This game will be huge.
    The following are some changes I would make if this were my own game.
    Take or leave, I hope you find some suggestions useful.

    1) A better way to defend fortifications is needed. Some possibilities:
    -A new block that allows only allied arrows to pass.
    -A simple mechanism that just throws stones, has a range of 1 tile. This could be placed on top of towers to smash attackers below.

    2) Make builders start with some stone.

    3) Ladders should be limited to vertical only. That is: every ladder tile needs another ladder or other solid tile beneath it.
    Why? Because currently it is too easy (and fast) to make ladder bridges. You can even make sky bridges which are a dominant strategy and ruin the game. It would be more fun if bridges could only be made from stone.

    4) Make stone more abundant.

    5) I recommend you make 5 different directions for the knight's shield.
    left, up_left, up, up_right, right
    Why? Because it should take some skill to use the shield.

    6) Gold bags are a bad idea IMO:
    Right now the easiest way to win is this: Take 3 or more builders, grab a gold bag, and dig below your base for gold.
    As you go down block your way with stone. This way digging gold is super fast because diggers dont have to go back up to stash gold. If by some odd chance a group of soldiers comes by it is very unlikely they will catch up with the diggers, and even if they do you can just kill yourself and come back as a soldier to kill them. Needless to say this is boring.

    -Also gold bags make griefing very very easy!!!

    I recommend you forget about stashing gold in bags. Just use the base for stashing gold. Then if an enemy gets to your base and presses 'E' he steals a gold bag with some % of your whole whealth (30%?) , which he can take back to his own base.

    This will prevent the worst form of griefing and the most boring strategy at the same time.

    7) The vast majority of gold should be located near the center of the maps. There should be close to no gold near the bases. This encourages more aggresive play, making the game more fun.
    Every time I play the team that just defends and focuses on digging wins over the most aggresive team. The best strategies should be the ones that are more fun.

    Building fortifications, mechanisms, bridges = fun
    Battle = fun
    Digging for gold miles away from the action = not fun

    Basically the team that wins is the one with more players that sacrifice their fun and dig for gold... lame.

    8) Add treasure chambers, visible to everyone from the very start. The treasures can be gold chests or just gold bags.
    Digging for treasures will actually be fun because there will be a competition to see which team gets there first.
    Obviously treasures need to be placed around the center of the maps.
  2. Beardbeard

    Beardbeard Guest

    I really like these ideas. Maybe instead of taking the gold from the tent, though, there could be unbreakable platforms on each side of the field holding an immobile treasure chest that is used to store/steal gold. Trying to loot the gold from the tent would be hell. Also, maybe add an actual bridge block that allows people to walk over it, but arrows can still be fired through it? Takes half of a log to build. Current ladders take 1/3 of a block. Would solve the issue pretty well without making it fucking annoying to gather the stone needed for a proper bridge.
  3. who

    who Shopkeep Stealer

    Doing that would just bring back the problem of how easy it is to make sky bridges over the entire map. There should be a block that allows arrows to be fire through it only by an archer that is at a 1 block distance from it. It could emulate the arrow slits used in medieval castles.
  4. bilbs

    bilbs Guest

    Yes, this. Sky bridges are a huge problem.
    On occasion I'll switch to the other team and destroy all their ladders in the sky, but that's a pain as well.

    I think 3 directions is better. You shouldn't be able to block above you and to the side at the same time.
    A knight can be taken down by two archers working together (or 1 really skilled archer) and that's how it should be.

    I do think the knights shield blocks too much right now though.
    I've shot an archer clearly in the side, while his shield was facing up, and it still deflected.
    This could have something to do with the sprites looking different than the hit boxes?
  5. DorkeyDear

    DorkeyDear Shipwright


    "-A new block that allows only allied arrows to pass."
    F11 - cant really give a good reason. i just don't feel is a good idea to implement

    "-A simple mechanism that just throws stones, has a range of 1 tile. This could be placed on top of towers to smash attackers below."
    kind of like, uhm don't know the term; spilling pots of tar over sides of castle walls.
    gives me an idea: fire. no, i don't mean trees catching on fire. i mean fire pits & fire arrows.

    I'm fine with this, only if it is a pretty minor amount of stone. Starting with too much may make it more preferable to place stone, kill yourself, and place more stone, at the beginning of a game.

    I love the behavior of having them usable as both bridges and ladders.
    Sky bridges are issues that do need to be handled, but I don't feel as though removal of this as a feature is a good solution.

    I have had many situations where i needed to block diagonally incoming arrows / guys (a tunnel at a 45 deg angle). having a sideways angle doesn't necessarially mean protecting full top & side; could be only part of top & part of side (an equivalent "coverage" as full top or side).

    I like gold bags. Just a opinion.

    Linear Normal distribution for gold density woo! Nah doesn't matter exactly what is used, but yes, imo gold should be located (in some maps) closer to the center -- allows for more competitive gameplay and less "lets all rush downwards"

    Cool concept. I like the idea.
  6. Final Boss

    Final Boss Guest

    Bridges should be allowed to be built horizontally. Building a short horizontal wall to cross a gap or bridge over an enemy defense is totally necessary. Perhaps we could get creative and say that if an archer stacks 15 arrows or so, he has the option to convert them into a fire arrow that burns ladders away, and the fire will travel along any other ladders touching the fire. (fire would not hurt players, just burn bridges)

    But also, as it stands, all you have to do to combat a sky bridge is fire a catapult from a tower to cut it down, or build a ladder up to it and conquer it yourself. But yeah, without the use of sky ladders, I've pretty much never seen a team successfully capture a bag, so something's got to change regardless.

    I agree with the "gold should be located at center of map." It's way to easy to win a game by simply digging downward.

    Also, I'd kinda like to see a thief class that can cloak as an enemy unit, use enemy doors, but only have 1 hit point. We need something that can get through thick vaults, and that's kinda the only way to do it.

    I like most of your suggestions, but I've written too much already to comment on them all at this point, haha.
  7. Alpha-37

    Alpha-37 Guest

    Hope some of these are implemented.

    How about making stone more common the deeper you go?
    It would give you a more reliable source.

    To combat sky bridges, the map height could be made shorter, so people couldn't build as high. This would also encourage horizontal movement.
    Sky bridges could still be made, but they would be much easier to combat.

    Also: fall damage.
  8. Spiff

    Spiff Guest

    @1 there's already a way to sort of do this in the game. When you build a wall you can make holes in it and put 1 block gates in it to act as shutters that archers can open and close to shoot out of.

    I like ideas 2 and 8. The rest are sorta meh. Deciding where gold is placed on the map would be a good option for map makers though so they can customize the play of their map.
  9. Eggnogg

    Eggnogg Guest

    In response to each of the suggestions...
    A block that allows only friendly arrows to pass is a bad idea, this will result in literally impossible to pick of snipers. If you can see and hit an archer, they should be able to see and hit you. I like the siege idea, but perhaps hot oil cauldrons instead of just dropping stones? It would be much more interesting, but serve the same purpose.

    No, I think the pace of building is fine as it is, and only needs a bit more of a speed increase (which should be done by more abundant stone). Letting builders start with stone also means that builders can just use the stone they start with, suicide, and get more stone.

    I somewhat agree. Ladder bridges need to be done away with, but this will stop efficient base/mine navigation. Perhaps just have a 'reach point' in which ladders attached to one another must be a certain number of blocks away from solid groud, otherwise they cannot be place, fall off, etc.

    Another idea: have falling damage, or if not that, have a 'stun' from falling from great heights, in which the player will be immobile and vulnerable for 1-2 seconds.


    Disagreed. I think it requires more skill and anticipation to only have 2 angles. Have multi-angled shields will result in archers getting a sneak shot off at unguarded knights impossible.

    I don't think gold bags should be dealt away with. The idea of an enemy having to visit the base isn't so good, that way teams can't store their gold in vaults (actually, come to think of it, vaults can be a game-killer, so having gold at bases might be feasible). I think when carrying a friendly bag of gold, you should not be allowed to carry it half way, or, when you die carrying a friendly bag of gold, the bag is just teleported back to your base.

    I definitely agree. Right now, collecting gold without being touched is too easy. Reaching the enemy base is hard enough, let alone having to stop enemy miners.

    I think this is a fantastic idea! This will certainly encourage people to get into the action at the beginning of games rather than build fortifications. Hectic duels over the gold will most certainly await!

    Good suggestions.
  10. nginferno

    nginferno Guest

    I am not so sure why skybridges are considered a menace, but im not exactly a fan of one. The problem with skybridges is that it is a double-edged blade and if you build one on the enemy base, they can make use of it by connecting it with ladders. Imo, it is a viable tactic, just not a very good one and consumes a lot of wood. I always try to make use of an enemy skybridge by connecting ladders to it and counterattack through the sky. And also, after i get to the enemy base, i kill their vertical ladders that connect to the bridge and make it a one way bridge. And we have map control.
  11. Ceical

    Ceical Guest

    I don't know why people are so adamant against fortifications and digging for gold. I play this game sheerly for defense. I do not want to be forced into combat. I'll keep my gold below the surface, thanks.