The Problem

See this has been a problematic attitude throughout this whole thread; people are still thinking in terms of pubs and individual agency. It's true that one skilled player can make major changes in the game, but the point is what happens when everyone is good. In our series of matches versus BoW we focused heavily on catas (which we protected as best as possible). Versus scrubby pubbies we would have raped face. However BoW had very good archers, and was able to plink our catas in to oblivion from the safety of their hillfort with quarters and arrow shop. What's more is that even catas, one of the best offensive tools, is even better on the defensive than offensive. So a moot point all around.

I have a played a number of clan matches and pubs against and alongside Strathos. While I'm not going to deny that he's amazing, he's still just one builder. His powers are finite and there are limits to what he can do.

About kegs: I have only played maybe two or three matches this new build, so I can't speak with absolute confidence but I think that they don't quite cut it yet. On a small, personal scale they do offer away to increase offensive power, but only in the short term for they are expendable. You don't have a keg, and mining x resources gives you a keg, increasing power. You expend keg, lowering your power back ot the original amount. You grind for another and again rise up, only to fall again. On the macroscopic scale the graph of power still looks flat. Buildings can be useful again and again, an arcers nest can provide cover and high ground for an eternity and can be continually improved upon for the same amount of time. Bombs and kegs can be used but once and you can only hold a limited amount.

If you haven't it would be good to at least watch a video of a clan match to know what I'm talknig about. Here's a YB vs HA match that really captures the issue. We are able to establish a strong hold in the first 3 minutes following which there's no map movement at all for about 40. Yes we played sub optimally in a number of respects, but try to look at the video with the assumption that we aren't absolutely incompetent and maybe it'll help illustrate what I'm talking about. Incidentally this video includes Strathos.



Geti's earlier interest makes me hopeful the devs will look into what we're talking about here.

 

I have to disagree.
Yes, buying keg is an action but building a keg shop is a longterm change. I'll use your RTS comparison:
making a keg is like making a bunch of banelings but a keg shop is like a baneling nest.
And catapults cycle is even more sophisticated. You have to build a shop, then make a cata and then you have to refill. The first thing is a longterm change, the third is an action and second is a change or action, depending on your gamestyle/situation.
And the thing about kegs: the only thing they can defend only from are rush buildings and you have to keep in my mind that rushing archers can shoot kegs as well.

 

Don't most people build the keg shop in the build phase? Isn't a keg shop just a normal bomb shop? I usual dig for gold and build a cata shop in the build phase if I feel like winning quickly, so making it cost gold is no issue either.

I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that it's not a good defensive tool because attacking archers can shoot it? I never argued that it was a defensive tool and an even stronger case is that defending archers can shoot attacking kegs.

 

Just wanted to cut off eventual discussion. I understand your confusion.

And yes, a demolition workshop where you make kegs is an upgrade for a bomb workshop. It costs gold on every server where I play. And having a gold in building phase is an another problem, depending on a map's balance.
So about gold and maps and balance and stuff:
too many maps have gold next to the tent (I mean, if you have to walk like 10 tiles and dig for 6 to reach it). Putting 80% of the gold in the middle and the other 20% very deep would solve that.

My position for now is:
-make kegs working properly in multiplayer (no more damn desynchs)
-make an unified map pool with well balanced maps.

 

Hopefully what's in bold should convince you that buildings are not overpowered. Out from that video the only problem i see is long 1 unit width structures sticking out for better reach, hence the birth of a sky-bridge, and that I believe should deserve more priority compared to your plans.

Also, I can't find anything unbiased about the video you showed us especially when one team has claimed higher ground which they can use to exploit the red team with. This is the situations I keep talking about, if both teams could claim that hill, I don't see what's imbalanced. Again, you're suggesting balances which are barely touching the minimal line for me to even dully note it. Also, that map you're playing in is bound to introduce massive exploitation of terrain, and once again, that I believe is what is effecting our game play while buildings and other offensive tactics would compliment that situation.

Most importantly, I have to add that Kegs itself seem to be a minor increase of offensive chance compared to what people hoped it to be, and that I believe isn't a bad thing at all. You can throw a keg with a high possibility of success affected by the Terrain/environment. Yes, an archer can easily shoot it down, but if it successfully reaches into contact of an enemy structure, than progress is made in large numbers.

 

@Ej: I agree, I think maps are a major part of the game and game balance that doesn't deserve enough attention. It was the same problem in Starcraft where balance problems were completely reversed depending on the map.

@spoolooni: Something can still be overpowered without being infinitely overpowered. Plus Unnamed was speaking primarily in regards to his offensive power, which I was responding to- Strathos isn't really known as a defensive builder. Furthermore Strathos isn't the only one who has access to the worker class, he has a whole team of people building.

You probably didn't watch very much of the video, and I don't blame you since it's very long and boring. But I think that even a casual skim will show you that out of the 45 minute vido, over half an hour of it is our teams being unable to break the other's opposing fortifications. Is that not a problem to you?

Also, quoting a whole wall of text and a video to highlight one sentence is a little excessive.

 

Just dropping this out there: These shops are something that a turtling team has a better access to, as the attackers have to all the time push forward.
And they are only for premiums; classic CTF needs some love too.

 

Doesn't matter if it's excessive, it over did the obvious point. Once again whatever is in bold should tell you that both teams had chances to fortify themselves. However, I don't believe that it is a problem that your team can't break their fortifications, neither do I care whether you are in that team or that team that you're in is loosing. You don't build buildings that can be broken easily or even broken at all, that's not how a game works with a winning side. Also, if you the other team claimed the hill, I beg the results will differ. It seems that you're judging the game based on how hard it is for you to win. The game's mechanics certainly do not determine the winner, the players who use such mechanics to the best of their advantage are the ones who win. Which is why I suggest doing something about excessive tunneling and sky-bridges which seems to defer the legit building aspect of the game.

 

I skimmed the video and I have to agree with Contrary - the game should be balanced so that stalemates are discouraged. As such it should be harder to defend then attack to give teams an incentive to push forwards and to allow a team with a territorial/positional advantage a greater chance to cap the flag. At the moment I only play ticket games because it takes so long for a CTF game to end, I'd like to see that changed.

 

Adding a shield break to all knights would get rid of a lot of the unbalanced problems, attacking them in short range is often fucking impossible as all they do is spam right click. They don't even have to do anything else if they don't want to but just charge up with the shield and wait for a chance to jab their sword and they can still do a lot of damage to you with the bombs as well.

 

Except archers aren't supposed to be beating knights short range, your counter is invalid.

 

Except that knights shouldn't be thinking that just because they have a shield that never breaks they are completely "invincible". Trust me, I get my ass handed to me bumping into a knight even when I do some arch shots to play mind games with him/her. However, I do bring an entire arrow holocaust to a certain few of them and their little menacing body blocks.

My counter invalid? Maybe, if only arrows could penetrate shields than you can call that counter invalid. Face it though, people need to stop basing balances on Shit Knights.

 

Blueluigi was talking about a rather stupid thing in that when you hit them they release their arrow automatically. Which is BS. It's not like when you shoot an arrow into an unshielded knight that you lose HP.

You're just going into a separate argument about how knights can shield against arrows. I think we all know that by now. You still have to drop your shield to attack though, which is why you get hit by the arrow being released..

 

And that is what is supposed to happen, you make people make decisions to either attack or defend. In fact, good archer will know when to predict the exact time frame where the knight would un shield himself to attack him/her. I myself failed many times executing a successful finishing arrow while achieved many kills by doing so and often even when I try attacking a knight in close range with an archer, they'll forward kite me into a bomb and I'm done for. Furthermore he performance of an archer depends on mobility as well, if I run backwards into a wall I cannot climb onto, that charge attack from that blade will guarantee death. Do note that archers only have 2 hearts.


I honestly met a few people who complain about archers being a "range character" while bragging about easily it is to take one down in close range. In fact, I observed 1 knight taking out more than a few archers in a row by himself, no names Cough*. Generally speaking, archers definitely used to be an entrenched class and their disability to use trap bridges now remove a large portion of that perk that they are recognized for. With the nerf that affected the trap bridges, the solution was a double edged sword as it rendered sky-bridges useless when archers can no longer gloriously spam arrows from it downwards without charging.


Archers are not overpowered, each class as an ability that can be exploited if used right and strife in many different situations, this isn't the first time I've said this.

 

Again, you're mistaking me. I'm not saying archers are overpowered, i'm well aware how easy it is to kill them in close range. I'm saying that it doesn't make logical sense and it's not rewarding to have their arrow hit you even though you did damage to them. Removing this isn't going to make archers underpowered and would remove some of the WTF from combat with them as a knight.

My comment about having to attack at some point was simply against your point about knight shielding. You were adamant that knights could just shield everything and that somehow made everything luigi and I said wrong. In fact shielding has got nothing to do with what we're saying at all, when we're talking about knights who are hitting archers and can't possibly shield the arrow that flings out straight after. This is because of the speed and proximity of the arrow when you're right next to them.

 

Alright then, because I've rarely came across such luck with my arrow releasing when I die, but when that happens, I do it manually which is an effective technique.