Arrows killing occupants?

[Krom]

@Bence: To whom your question is directed?

@RandomLyrics: That sounds realistic and also fair from players perspective (house is all in flames). However from balance standpoint that means almost nothing gets changed - Towers are still as effective as they are, we just slice ~50hp off.

[Bence791]

To you, Krom.

[MpranavM]

Sounds like a nice idea

[Krom]

Hm. And if you somehow made it like there is a random number between 1 and 100, and if it is 1, 2, 3 or 4 then the crossbowman would shoot directly at the recruit?

That's implementation details really.

In code that would have looked like so:

  Code:

const CHANCE = 0.04; IsKilled := Random <= CHANCE; //Random returns number between 0 and 1

[Lewin]

I don't really see the point of this game mechanic. I think it will just seem random and frustrating for the owner of the tower (the recruit could be killed in the first few shots). How does it improve the game?

[Krom]

This mechanic could add some depth if the occupant would be killed between 50hp and 0hp left perhaps. Not more.

[Esthlos]

I don't really see the point of this game mechanic. I think it will just seem random and frustrating for the owner of the tower (the recruit could be killed in the first few shots). How does it improve the game?

I was hoping it would give some counterplay to tower spamming... while it is true that spamming towers is very resource-consuming and does not grant victory (if not straight up make it more difficult for the owner, due to the resources used), it also makes games tedious and unnecessarily very long. Because towers are a huge presence in close quarters (up to 5 soldiers killed per tower is a lot if you can't micromanage a few units to make them waste ammo, and even so it becomes extremely tedious to do for tens of them while there is also a small defending force) and take a long time to destroy with ranged units.
The possibility to disable them with fewer shots would make the process quicker while making rebuilding faster, if the defender ultimately manages to repel the attacking force

P.S: I just got another idea, that personally I like more (maybe simply because it's the newest )... I'm opening another thread about it.

[Krom]

Hm, then we are talking about archers bonus against towers, they become much more lethal to defenses, but then we need to raise the chance of killing a recruit so that it gets killed after ~20 shots. But archers are already superior to towers, they have much higher range. what if only xbows have that special ability to disarm Towers ?

[Bence791]

what if only xbows have that special ability to disarm Towers ?

Tbh I'd already be fine with that, so xbows would get a buff over bowmen.

@Lewin: Atm it is pretty frustrating that the enemy has loads of towers and may have a huge army between them that you can't predict (the size, since you can't see it), and attacking at a much huger army (not to mention that there are many towers) can be fatal... This is what encourages camping and discourages attacking, and probably this would be a solution to it. So if this is possible, we'd like to test it.

[RandomLyrics]

@Lewin: Atm it is pretty frustrating that the enemy has loads of towers and may have a huge army between them that you can't predict (the size, since you can't see it), and attacking at a much huger army (not to mention that there are many towers) can be fatal... This is what encourages camping and discourages attacking, and probably this would be a solution to it. So if this is possible, we'd like to test it.

With xbows this is good coz the number of them is mostly limited, and when pt ends you can choose beetween bows vs open area and xbows vs camper, so the role of both of them will be difrrent and xbows will return in multiplayer games, coz now as i rember its mass bows. From now the chance to disarm towers should rise about (0-75 hp) 50/50 or evan 100% chance to kill, so the occupied player have to react fast(without random number he already knew that he must do smth). What do you think ?

[Ben]

Hmm, well I don't want my earlier post to be misunderstood. Though I said this was an interesting idea and that it might be reasonable, I don't think it is needed, for the exact reason Lewin gave (it adds no real depth to the game). Also, when one of my recruits dies from an arrow shot, now I have to deal with my recruits getting shot on the way to towers. Though I'm not against this quirk in the game (it makes sieging a little more tactical), it would be especially frustrating in this situation. I think Matthew's not-so-original idea of siege machines is a much better solution.