The Problem

I don't agree with the mentality that you need a builder to move forward. It should be a great help yes, but if you can't get one to the front your knights should still be able to push forward, altho painfully slowly.

the question isn't should those 5 knights at the base of your tower be allowed to move forward. The question is WHY are there 5 uncontested knights at your door. Do you have too many archers? Stuff like that needs to have a consequence.

too add to that, a game where both teams want to be the one defending is silly. Both teams should want to attack, and one should be FORCED into defence. Because if defending is the prefered option, you're stuck waiting until one team decides it would rather play then win.

 

I like these ideas. I think these 3 things might help, and any further changes should be looked at incrementally, and not all done at once, as too much might break the game.

1. Build time. 0.5 or 1 second per block. Or maybe instant-0.5 for the 'free build' at the start of a match.

2. Free Build. Amount of time should still be optionally set by the server. Let the server owner choose how built up the bases can begin. But I think 2-3 seconds = 10 free resources when standing at base is more then reasonable to prevent mega-castles from spawning.

3. Bomb Jumping. Looks like you have it covered. Carry on.

 

How can building be a balance issue if both teams can build? How can one team have an advantage over the other if they're both in the same position and environment?

 

That's what i have always thought, is why threads about balance seem very uneeded since both teams have access to everything and anything that someone could indentify as an inbalance.

 

It's called inbalance within teams/classes rather than inbalance between teams. Such cross team inbalances are usually very quickly ironed out, because there is a public outcry.

But say if a particular class is overpowered, it causes everyone to use him. That's bad balance because the three classes are there because they should each be necessary to make a good team, rather than just needing 18 knights 1 archer and 1 builder (hypothetical)

 

Guys, it's about balancing classes, and gameplay flow. If it's better the defend, why attack? If you're not attacking, then no one will win. If a builder can just plug a tunnel in an instant, a knight is useless. If an archer is unstoppable in a tower, and the only reliable way to bring down a tower is with a catapult, but the archer can easily destroy the catapult.... Well, you see what happens, and why these types of threads exist now?

 

Perhaps we could put it this way: Defending is OP?

When you have a fortification done right and a shitload of archers + few knights in front, the enemy will have hard time trying to break into your castle or collapse it. Only way to attack is building a skybridge or making a tunnel, yet you can try it at ground level.. which will likely lead to so huge decrease in tickets that you'll lose even if you manage to conquer the castle.

So to say, defending is overpowered because of the tickets. This is all different in servers that have unlimited units (insert ad slogan here).

In my opinion, we just simply need more ways to siege. We can't balance the game while keeping it fun with the current mechanisms. Ballista, ram, kegs, all that stuff (and counters to them), all that stuff. Attacking needs to be more efficient than defending.

Currently a good defense versus good attack always wins.

 

Seem right to me, most people play knight, a couple of people play archer and everyone uses builder a few times in each match.

 

Imho incremental building would disrupt the gameflow by quite a bit, especially when building offensively. I think implementing a "fatigue timer" for building would be the better choice. So you can basically still place blocks instantly, but as soon as you do it a few times in quick succession you will get a cooldown in which you cannot place any blocks.

As soon as the timer reaches 10 a builder will have a five second cooldown in which he cannot place any blocks. The minimum for the timer is 0, the maximum is 10.
Now here are some examples how that timer gets manipulated:

Placing a castle back wall: +1
Placing a ladder: +2
Placing a trap bridge: +2
Placing a castle wall: +4
Placing a team door: +7
Placing spikes: +1
Placing a workshop tile: +1
Placing no block for one second: -2
Building a workshop: -5
Destroying an enemy door: -3
Destroying spikes: -1
Doing damage to enemy players: -1 per heart

Something like this would severely nerf defensive building while keeping offensive building (like placing ladders or replacing enemy doors with own doors) relatively on par. Such a system would also be every easy to tweak if it turns out that something (like replacing your own doors as soon as they are destroyed) was nerfed to much or was not nerfed enough. Please note that the numbers in this post are mere examples. In the end the timer should probably be from 0 to 100 (and the other numbers increased accordingly), as this is easier to comprehend for new players and will allow for finer shades when balancing the numbers.
The timer should be displayed for people who are playing builder.

 

There is nothing really so significant about this article, other than bomb jumping. I know that some of you are complaining about it taking so long for a builder to destroy a stone block, but that brings an element of challenge to the sieges, and also if a knight can just break blocks, then, a Vivicuis said, knights will be plowing through bases like nothing, because usually like 60% of the entire team are knights in the first place.
-Catapults are fine just as they are, it takes a reasonable amount to breach a wall, sure it can also catapult players across the walls, but its only one at a time, and usually if you on the enemy's territory alone (unless your super 133t) you'll get mauled. Plus, it takes stone to fire it, so that will balance it out more.
-Knights are fine, but bomb jumping has to go, and that annoying glitch where when you use special attack once, it happens twice and completely destroys you, and the multiple hearts glitch, and the charge attack-fast travel glitch, and the invincibility glitch, these have to go, because more and more innocent players are being kicked for something of no fault of their own.
-Archers are under-powered though, its not because they only have two hearts, because that every single time that you die, all of you arrows vanish, although that's fine with the more hardcore players, newer players might get frustrated with this, so all you really have to do, is make the arrows like money, and upon death, you will only lose a portion of your arrows, instead of all.

Honestly, i think you all are just little kids who cannot enjoy a little bit of a challenge, naw just kidding, but still, there is a thin line of balancing a game, and making it too easy, and most of these posts are crossing it.

 

I don't know if you read my post but my main gripe about how long a builder takes to destroy a block is the fact that other builders use this to entomb themselves underground without ever getting taken out. They can survive for minutes on end even with 3 builders destroying all the stone they put out. That is ridiculous and OP. The manpower just doesn't match up. 3 guys all working together to kill one guy and they cant even get close because of instant damn building and forever destroying his blocks.

Another thing. It's not "A challenge" it's near impossible to get a builder safely to the tower without him getting murdered. Even if you've got like most of your team huddling outside, so long as the enemy have units left they will wipe you out due to height advantage and kill your poor builder every time. Not to mention they can just throw a bomb in there and bam, bye bye builder.

There is challenge, and then there is stuff that's so hard that makes you think "Whats the point in attacking at all?"

 

Actually if you do notice throughout castle siege strategies in history, builders/ strategic engineering do play a part in battle. Again, builders do not have much abilities to defend themselves, until the release of other features like the battling ram and the siege towers. Also, I have to disagree with both sides being stalemate, because that's not often the case. It's apparent in most battles between experienced players, builders do expand their fortresses forward into battle, while knights and other offensive units from both sides quickly charge in and weaken their enemy's units as fast as possible, this what "Stratos" refers it to be, a rush hour.

It seems that the ace of the game depends on the team with the bigger number of units at the BEGINNING of the game. Also, I don't know why people still bitch about the defensive side always winning, because there is certainly many other options for a marching team to form a valid strategy instead of spamming bombs and crab walking. Personally from my experience, I've lost many battles when my team decided to be defensive especially when the opposition team had fast builders that filled the entire field with blue doors and ladders. In about 4 minutes, many outposts were built and we eventually lost. Also in my other experiences, I've won many games with an aggressive team with oppressive builders, tree archers and dig squads. It's simply a beauty to watch all these elements conform into an orchestra of destruction.
-
@ People complaining about building.
And for people constantly whining about fast building, the real question is, why aren't your team working together? It's not that hard for everyone to participate in building, and most of the time I can see a couple of useless bastards hanging around chopping trees and goofing around with other classes when they could be building with resources....

Also, there will always be a variety of builders, some are slow and inexperienced, others are perfectionists and others are blitzkrieg fast. My opinion stands against the concept of adding timers. Why? It's going to discourage people from playing builders, and more or so when other players have negative attitudes towards the concept of building and rather hop into the action. Good team mates would often help building with resources and get it done with so they can hop right into battle. Timers are generally speaking, pure essences of grief and it will surely remove the challenge while discouraging builders to be more offensive a long side with the future updates of siege equipment. Not to mention, it really contradicts the idea of a scripted fight, I expect my team's performances to be based on decision making, knowledge and reflexes and not based on a imbecile timer in the middle of the screen.

 

You can already advance painfully slow with bombs or digging a tunnel as knight ...

 

Spoolooni - Because this game is * completely* historically accurate right? I am not saying a team cant win by attacking, but its something like an 80% chance. plus if a team wins by attacking, they would of won by defending for sure.

Mugmaste - Bombs only work on skinny towers... and tunneling only works if the builders on the team suck.



So, Following up on the "Removing vertical Ladders" idea. I wrote up a quick suggestion post, i don't want to post it here simply because it would take up too much space. i hope after reading this a few more of you will agree that it would be good for gameplay to remove them.

http://www.kagforum.com/threads/planks-and-trapdoors.4376/

 

Not just historically but in general, in terms of war, the more strategically aggressive side would have a healthier chance to win. I for one, believe that unbalancing of structures and classes are not the problem, but the one sided issues that falls upon which team uses their units BETTER. After all, units are available to people on both sides. Even if we removed all the building aspects place knights in either side summarily to a dodge ball game. It's apparent the team with the most throwing balls on their side will have the advantage, but they are going to have to throw them anyway if they wanted to actually do damage. Whether there's obstacles or not, the concept of crossing the middle line is going to be there no matter what you try to do.


Also I don't get what point you're trying to proof in your second sentence, seems that you are forming a hypothesis to something that's already obvious.

 

in "General" it takes twice as many men to take a city as it does to defend it.
it does not make for good gameplay.

And if you agree the defending team has a much greater chance of winning, why are you against making attacking easier?

 

I think Archer Warriors. should Gain XP for Kills, and Workers get XP for Buildings and finding Gold ore also gain double xp if you kill someone. once you die you start back a lvl 1
After you get 3 Kills you gain a Level, when you die your back at lvl 1
Builder LVL 2, Three and half Hearts, can build 1 Extra block away, mine dirt stone wood faster
Builder Lvl 3 +2 damage 4 hearts can Break walls super fast

Archer Lvl 2, 25% to not use a arrow when Fired, must have 1 arrow, run 15% faster speed
Archer lvl 3 50% to not use a arrow when fired must have 1 arrow 3 Hearts 15% Faster running speed 5% faster Power shot speed
Warrior Lvl 2 ,4 Hearts +1 to damage, can Break Stone walls in 6 hits power swing
Warrior lvl 3 5 Hearts +2 damage can break stone walls in 4 hits with power swing 5% faster power swing charge, 5% faster normal swing attack Warrior has a Axe at lvl 3?

 

The simply analogy of a dodge ball game doesn't seem to be illuminating to you at all. Also, I'm not going to approve the aggressive approaches to dumb down defenses. Why? The concept of defense isn't going to disengage from it's definition either way. The chain of whiny little knights will never end; We can completely remove the building aspect of the game, but the concept of defense vs attack will still stand. Remember the middle line? You could easily grab 2 balanced teams of knights and archers on each side, but the defensive side with more "saturated man power" will win since they got a nice amount of tanks and back snipers.


@Gorrosh

Why even bother implementing a system that will really encourage more balancing threads while turning KAG into nightmare of numeric figures?

 

Because defending would be like having all the dodge balls all the time.
your analogy doesn't work.

its now apparent to me that you think the current trap door gauntlets are fine and in no way"Dumbed down".
Currently to defend you need to do ONE thing, Kill the builder. if this is not "Dumbed down" I don't know what is. defending is stupid easy. the changes me and others propose will make it more challenging and fun.

If you think everything is fine because "Both teams have the same options" then you really have no idea of what gameplay balance is, and really, you shouldn't be posting here.

 

Defending is too easy period.