Map Database  •  FAQ  •  RSS  •  Login

Towers

<<

Krom

User avatar

Knights Province Developer

Posts: 3280

Joined: 09 May 2006, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Fair

Location: Russia

Post 07 Sep 2012, 05:07

Re: Towers

Count me in for "those who want to leave Towers an element of the game that allows more varied tactics than simple 'who has biggest army after PT - wins' ". Now we have 7-7 ))

Seriously though, Towers mean that towns are more than a simple unit/weapons production facilities. You fight outside town walls and if your army got defeated you get that extra time that it takes to take 4-5 Towers down to hire some more troops and try to defend your town, which is IMPORTANT. You spend 1 hour building it and it does not feels right that after the first fight enemy invades the town and renders it dead in 5-10min.
Knights Province at: http://www.knightsprovince.com
KaM Remake at: http://www.kamremake.com
Original MBWR/WR2/AFC/FVR tools at: http://krom.reveur.de
<<

Bo_

User avatar

Knight

Posts: 538

Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 17:18

KaM Skill Level: Beginner

Location: Belgium

Post 07 Sep 2012, 06:22

Re: Towers

Everyone's opinion is equal in discussions like this. I'd say that experienced players will know more about the game so they can present evidence of what they have experienced to the others here, but just saying "take our word for it" is arrogant and doesn't help anybody else understand your opinion. You need to explain and demonstrate to us why tower spam is a problem and why our counter arguments are invalid, then we might come over to your side. But just saying "we're right because we're more experienced" without convincing others just isn't how this community works. Think of it as like a democracy, if you want people to support you, you have to show them why your policies/ideas are best. Just saying "I'm most experienced so I'm right" won't get you anywhere.
Honestly it shouldn't. A good player's oppinion should be taken more seriously than a weaker player, this doesn't mean we're saying that you all just should take our word for it. My on-topic argument has been removed by TDL because it was 'offtopic', still it showed a similar way, so I can't show you how. But about showing how, To did, we were all in that game. We can even send you the replay, you'll see how much less troops Matt had in that game. ;) It just required +5 builders and +1 stone quarry.
We don't say that we're right because we're more experienced,
But hey since everybody is equal here I'll just call my grandma and the rest of the family, I'll explain it to them, and they will share their oppinion because their oppinion is AS IMPORTANT AS EVERYBODY ELSE.
I think it was Shadaoe who said that it's about a game and a game is supposed to be fun, so everybody is the same.
So there are people here who haven't played kam for 3 years, don't say I just suppose that,it is true.
I don't see here how the factor 'fun' can be an argument for 'everybody's oppinion is equal'?

But yes, what I think is wrong about your argument?
Here it's like about what you want, your style of game.
We're talking about balancing the game, for every style of game, and not for optimising our style of game.
Kick fast, think Bo.
<<

The Dark Lord

User avatar

King Karolus Servant

Posts: 2154

Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Veteran

Location: In his dark thunderstormy castle

Post 07 Sep 2012, 06:42

Re: Towers

Well as you can read, Lewin considers opinions equally important so you will just have to deal with that. You have to come with strong arguments to convince us, not with 'I'm right, you should listen to me' because obviously it doesn't work this way and you know that just as good as us.
Now enough about this, there was a reason I deleted those posts and I'm now in doubt if I should do it again. Next time I certainly will, so please go ontopic again.
<<

Lewin

User avatar

KaM Remake Developer

Posts: 3822

Joined: 16 Sep 2007, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Skilled

ICQ: 269127056

Website: http://lewin.hodgman.id.au

Yahoo Messenger: lewinlewinhodgman

Location: Australia

Post 07 Sep 2012, 07:02

Re: Towers

We can even send you the replay, you'll see how much less troops Matt had in that game. ;) It just required +5 builders and +1 stone quarry.
So what's the problem here? He has less troops than the others, but he has towers. So that's a trade off. Just think of towers as stationary troops. You made lots of normal troops, he made lots of towers. Either way you can both defend yourself against attacks. Your strategy is more risky, if you lose your troops then your village can be overrun. Matt's tactics are safer, if he loses his troops he still has some static defences left, but there's a tradeoff because he can't play so aggressively, can't help his allies as much and can't take as much territory. It's all tradeoffs and tech choices. You seem to think towers are not a valid tactic/choice, so I think you should just play without towers once we have the mutators implemented. As Krom said, what's the fun if you build for 1 hour then only fight for 10 minutes? Towers allow longer games, sieges, capturing territory, etc. It's much more varied and interesting than 1 hour of building and 10 minutes of fighting until one side loses. You don't have to like this style of play, and in that case you should play without towers if you want only 10 minutes of fighting.

Now if you had said Matt had the same number of troops as those who did not build towers, THEN I would agree there's a problem. But you said he had considerably less, so that balances it because he made towers instead of troops :)
But hey since everybody is equal here I'll just call my grandma and the rest of the family, I'll explain it to them, and they will share their oppinion because their oppinion is AS IMPORTANT AS EVERYBODY ELSE.
You could, but they wouldn't be able to provide convincing arguments because they don't know the game, so nobody hear would agree with their opinions. They wouldn't be able to respond logically to counterarguments, they wouldn't be able to provide evidence. Whereas YOU should be able to do these things because you say you say you are experienced. I personally haven't seen evidence of anything that looks like a problem to me, To's screenshot shows that you need to empty 5 towers before you can attack, and that Matt chose to make towers instead of troops, but it looks like it didn't pay off for him because he's surrounded by soldiers. So maybe next time he should try a few less towers and a few more troops. Where's the problem in all this? Making towers instead of troops is a choice, and it's not going to pay off if you spam lots of towers, there's a balance between towers and troops that is most effective.
I also don't think you've answered my counterarguments effectively. This forum is for debating, providing evidence, countering arguments. That's how you get people to understand your point of view, not by saying "what I wrote is right because I'm experienced."
We're talking about balancing the game, for every style of game, and not for optimising our style of game.
If towers only kill 1-2 units out of 5 stones then the game will be very badly balanced for people who like to be able to defend their villages with some towers, have sieges, and play a game that lasts longer than 10 minutes after peacetime ends. A lot of people here seem to like these styles of game. So how is it balanced for every style of game? I really do think you're just optimising it for a game with no sieges, where a player who wins a fight with just 6 units left can defeat his opponent by marching past the towers which won't kill them and destroying his barracks, and where there's no opportunity for more than one battle after peacetime, and no chance to quickly build up a new army after losing most of your first one. With weak towers your village is a big open door, people can just waltz in with only a few units and destroy you. With strong towers you need to have a reasonable number of soldiers before you can move in.

Maybe you don't find it fun to have to deal with enemy towers at all. Personally I like it, trapping your enemy inside his village, expanding your village to capture more resources across the map, building up an army then executing a massive attack that breaks through his defences. I think that's fun. Sure it's not the same as tactical combat where troops are the only important aspect, but IMO it's another aspect of KaM that is fun. If you don't think that's fun and want troops to be the only important aspect, play without towers. We're not going to make towers very weak just because you only like to play with troops, not towers. That's your choice, don't force it upon everyone else.

It's like the food change, some people don't like it because they enjoyed playing without food playing a noticeable role in the game. We got a lot of complaints about it when the RC was first released, including from a number of experienced players. But now everybody seems to be used to it. People will always complain about changes because their old strategies need adapting. People who don't like hunger can play with it disabled as a mutator. People who don't like towers can play with them disabled.
But yes, what I think is wrong about your argument?
Here it's like about what you want, your style of game.
What is this link supposed to be showing? I don't understand.
<<

Da Revolution

Knight

Posts: 720

Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 12:07

Location: Near the inn

Post 07 Sep 2012, 07:10

Re: Towers

So what's the problem here? He has less troops than the others, but he has towers.
Bo means that he had quite a lot of troops.
"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path" - Buddha
<<

Jeronimo

User avatar

Knight

Posts: 695

Joined: 24 Feb 2011, 23:00

Post 07 Sep 2012, 07:26

Re: Towers

Oh my gosh! Everyone here is so hot! :$
Even George Stain complained...

Long long time ago... I suggested an additional Bar at lobby, below Peacetime.
Towerlimit: from 0 to 40 (with 20 as the average = 60 pt with 120 minutes max).

My idea was ignored back then :'( (having even 5/5 hit chance), but as we know... Who were PRO back then?
Very few, so it never was a "big deal" till now where many players have seen it exploitable.

Those were the times of [3 quarries/16 labourers] -> PRO winner :)
Of course that even having the 5/5 towers, the few quarries/labourers never made it exploitable (tough I still saw this was possible).

Today, in the present, it is exploitable with the 3/5 hit chance, because most PRO players [6 quarries/+35 labourers].
However remember: This happens mostly in 3v3 or 4v4, because it's teamplay. And certain maps are better than others.
--------------------------------------------------------

My happy solution for everyone: Towerlimit Bar (from 0 to 40) in lobby, below Peacetime.
Slide counter starts in 40 as default (Tower spam allowed), different to Peacetime bar (which starts at 0).
Slide counter reduces -5 in each section (9 possibilities -> 0-5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40).

Host will determinate if max towers allowed should be lower, depending the map chosen and the teams available.
For instance, in 2vs2 (30 limit), in 4vs4 (15 limit). Mhhh! I'd like a match with max 5 or 10 towers, very strategical placing.
<<

Lewin

User avatar

KaM Remake Developer

Posts: 3822

Joined: 16 Sep 2007, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Skilled

ICQ: 269127056

Website: http://lewin.hodgman.id.au

Yahoo Messenger: lewinlewinhodgman

Location: Australia

Post 07 Sep 2012, 08:33

Re: Towers

Bo means that he had quite a lot of troops.
Oh, it didn't look like it from what he wrote. In that case post the replay and I'll have a look :)
<<

Shadaoe

Knight

Posts: 584

Joined: 28 Jul 2011, 22:00

Website: https://www.youtube.com/user/KaMRemake

Post 07 Sep 2012, 09:35

Re: Towers

It's likely a personal preference but I don't like tower wars myself. For the attacker it requires some strategy yes but I can't understand how it could add more strategy for the camper. And as I said before, with the improved food system armies are smaller and with towers being better they will be spammed alot more and that's exactly what makes them overpowered.
It improves strategy because securing key points of the map is quite interesting ! if from your village you epand a bit and bloc 1-2 ways to your team, you just achieved a strategy as much as someone who built some army, because they'll be stopped here for a while and maybe your allies can defend it. But the enemy can still get past it, so it isn't invincible, it just adds a more complex gameplay that can be efficient or not, depending on the players, the map etc.
I think it's really representative. Atleast I thought we as beta testers are here to help solve problems like this. Even if there are only 20 of us.
Yes beta testers are here to give their advice, but what I said is that 20 players isn't even the majority in the RC (see Lewin's post), but just because these 20 players are "pro", their opinion should be counted as the majority ?
the game will be a lot more like "the one who wins the first fight wins", because if towers don't kill enough units, they will let a lot of people in, and it'll be so frustrating to have players inside your city just because the few towers you built didn't do any damage (I'm not talking about tower spam here)
I think it's really sad that you give towers such an important role to play in your gameplay, so without towers you expect yourself to lose the game? If so it's better to play against equally skilled players instead, I'd say. But maybe I didn't understand your point completely. If you mean you don't want to spam towers but the towers you have do decent damage I totally agree here. We only need a way to prevent people building all those towers.
I think Lewin explained quite well what I meant, but I'll try to explain a bit too.
Yes without towers I expect to lose a lot more often, and you would too by the way, because without towers at all (you said without towers), so let's expand your idea, every single enemy unit can go into your town and kill a dozen of citizens. So if you lose a fight, you're basically dead. And if your allies have an army to help you but you don't have any tower, the time it takes for them to go in your town will be quite long compared to the time it takes to empty a town. I don't see why my player "skill" got in the discussion really, it's just that yes, you lose much more without any towers, not always, but you just count a lot more on luck without towers, because every lost fight makes some enemies enter your town.
Yes you didn't really understand my point, I just said that towers are fine now (in my opinion), because they kill an average of 3 out of 5 units, which is good and you can secure key points of your town (or of the ma) efficiently. I'm not a tower spammer myself, but I don't mind having to take down towers, because the enemy can't expand this way if he's under siege, and you can go through his towers quite easily.

I think it was Shadaoe who said that it's about a game and a game is supposed to be fun, so everybody is the same.
So there are people here who haven't played kam for 3 years, don't say I just suppose that,it is true.
I don't see here how the factor 'fun' can be an argument for 'everybody's oppinion is equal'?

But yes, what I think is wrong about your argument?
Here it's like about what you want, your style of game.
We're talking about balancing the game, for every style of game, and not for optimising our style of game.
I don't get the point of the link, must be an error.
I'm not talking at all about optimizing my playing style ! I'm talking about keeping towers as they are now because it makes the game better, because it's less likely that the first fight decides the game. I personaly don't like losing one fight after 10 mins of PT and lose because towers let enters easily.
Yes fun is a factor, because games are made to have fun.
<<

T*AnTi-V!RuZz

User avatar

Former Site Admin

Posts: 1826

Joined: 03 Jan 2007, 23:00

KaM Skill Level: Fair

Website: http://www.knightsandmerchants.net

Location: The Netherlands

Post 07 Sep 2012, 10:36

Re: Towers

Here's what I think:

- Towers aren't overpowered (3/5 kills is perfect).
- People should be able to choose which strategy they want to use (defensive, offensive). That means that, like in the screenshot, it's possible to spam like 30 towers. However, as Lewin said, you don't have to counter them all. Just attack from one or two directions with militias and completely destroy them.
- Defensive strategies (I think) will be preferred by weaker players, since it gives them more time (after PT) to build an army. I think this is a good thing, because now it's still a rush to the biggest army after PT. The ones who also have a good economy and can keep producing troops mostly win.
- Often you play with allies, so you can take out other enemies before attacking the one with ~30 towers. 3 vs 1 is easy, even with 30 towers.

I also think that good player's opinion aren't more important than weaker player's. It's all about keeping everything in balance, for both good and weaker players. Often, strong players encounter different problems than weaker players. The argument someone gave saying that 'Strong players take the time to test the RC' is invalid of course. There aren't only strong players testing the RC and that's a good thing.

One funny thing I keep noticing is that players who say they're strong players, can't counter 5 towers.. Of course you can, you just don't want to. That's something entirely different..
<<

pepa999

Woodcutter

Posts: 15

Joined: 27 Mar 2012, 10:17

Post 07 Sep 2012, 12:28

Re: Towers

I suggest to remake tower system. Tower will always hit and will inflict damage from 3 to 9. That damage will be then divided by unit armor.
Then, it will be again divided by 1 or 2 or 3. 1 when unit stands still. 2 when unit move. 3 when unit runs.

So, tower will be extremely powerfull versus militia rush, when you will make some units(for example lancers) to protect them. But versus
armored units it will be less powerfull. Especially, pack of knights versus lots of undefended towers will be extremely powerful. You can
run in that towers with minimal loses.

Look at the exact numbers. Average damage is 6. So, it will kill staying militia in one hit, even with minimal damage. When militia move, it will do 3 damage in average
, so often, it will kill moving Militia. Running Militia will be little harder to kill. Only Damage of 2 in Average, but it is a point,
that you must use your tower effectively with your army.

Leather units with two armor will be little more resistant versus towers, but only when they move or runs. Towers need one hit in average to kill
staying axefighter, but need 2 hit to kill him when he moves, and 3 hits to kill him when he runs. When we count with it also regeneration of units,
towers are awful versus moving and running units. And it is a good to hear, because you must use your towers with army, or you will dont have much
benefits from them. Leather horses will be even more powerful versus them, when they move. They always "runs", so they will be very powerful versus
undefended towers. Tower need 4 hit to kill Scout, when he move. But only 1.33 hit, when he staying.

Iron units will be a little resistant versus tower even when they staying. Tower need 1.5 hit to kill swordsman when he staying. But need 3 hit, when he moves.
And 4.5 hits, when he running. Tower need 2 hit to kill staying Knight, but need 6 hit to kill him, when he running. With regeneration, pack of
Knights will be the best response to lots of undefended towers.
<<

EDMatt

Knight

Posts: 409

Joined: 08 Jul 2012, 00:43

KaM Skill Level: Expert

Post 07 Sep 2012, 13:06

Re: Towers

My list against towers:
1: Fu
2: To
3: Jeronimo
4: Itlerion
5: Mully
6: Bo
7: Pizzaisgood
8:Fried chicken
9:/ED/Matt
10: Kilarus
11: Nightfurry
12: George Stain
13: Revo (first page he clearly states that towers are too good atm)


Ill continue the list when I confirm it with other players from my skype contacts.
I got 6 more people sharing similar opinion.
Last edited by EDMatt on 07 Sep 2012, 13:37, edited 2 times in total.
Image
Roses are red
violets are blue
I.G. is blessed
To be the BEST!!
<<

Leeuwgie

User avatar

Sword Fighter

Posts: 257

Joined: 22 Apr 2012, 00:33

KaM Skill Level: Beginner

Post 07 Sep 2012, 13:20

Re: Towers

Now if you had said Matt had the same number of troops as those who did not build towers, THEN I would agree there's a problem. But you said he had considerably less, so that balances it because he made towers instead of troops :)
I have the stats from that game:
Right after peacetime, he didn't had considerably less troops as you can see:
Image
And at the end of the game he had 2nd most troops:
Image
I also don't think you've answered my counterarguments effectively. This forum is for debating, providing evidence, countering arguments. That's how you get people to understand your point of view, not by saying "what I wrote is right because I'm experienced."
I agree and thats why I try to argument on this with screens and explanations (but likely you refer to Bo only). What bothers me a little by now is that you repeatedly say we like to crush players right after peacetime and so we should play without towers. That's not true. That's black and white thinking. Even people like Jeronimo like to see a limit on towers. It's not the tower itself, it's just that they are spammed like crazy since they are buffed.

To
No matter what, always keep smiling ~ Bassie (from Bassie & Adriaan)
<<

T*AnTi-V!RuZz

User avatar

Former Site Admin

Posts: 1826

Joined: 03 Jan 2007, 23:00

KaM Skill Level: Fair

Website: http://www.knightsandmerchants.net

Location: The Netherlands

Post 07 Sep 2012, 13:30

Re: Towers

Based on the responses here I count 7 people in this topic who don't like towers as they are now and 6 people who like it.
It's funny you say that. I counted the 'votes' in this topic:

8 people say the towers are fine.
4 people say the towers are overpowered.

:rolleyes:
<<

Shadaoe

Knight

Posts: 584

Joined: 28 Jul 2011, 22:00

Website: https://www.youtube.com/user/KaMRemake

Post 07 Sep 2012, 13:57

Re: Towers

In a game we just had, it took TDL around 15 militias to empty 8 towers. Is that op ? I don't think so, and even more if you assume you're a "pro" player, because making militias is so easy fro pro players, they are better.
And he didn't even ahve to empty all the otwers to enter in my city, so I don't think it's that hard to get through.
<<

T*AnTi-V!RuZz

User avatar

Former Site Admin

Posts: 1826

Joined: 03 Jan 2007, 23:00

KaM Skill Level: Fair

Website: http://www.knightsandmerchants.net

Location: The Netherlands

Post 07 Sep 2012, 14:02

Re: Towers

In a game we just had, it took TDL around 15 militias to empty 8 towers. Is that op ? I don't think so, and even more if you assume you're a "pro" player, because making militias is so easy fro pro players, they are better.
And he didn't even ahve to empty all the otwers to enter in my city, so I don't think it's that hard to get through.
And this is exactly what Lewin's been trying to say the past few days.

Return to “Feedback / Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests