Balance testing release r4297

[The Dark Lord]

Well at least they use marketplaces as a wall, I can live with that.

[Leeuwgie]

lol, the more markets destoyed the happier TDL gets. Who started that crap anyway? I guess I saw Mully do it first, like the builderrush also and some other exploits.

[Da Revolution]

Mulb was the first who started blocking indeed. Farms first later it became markets. Builder rush was from way before mulb did it, even before he played.

[Jeronimo]

Mulb was the first who started blocking indeed. Farms first later it became markets.

He started doing it in Powah tournament. But I have always suspected he inspired from my first round game there.
viewtopic.php?p=14169#p14169

Replays is not available, but I started in position Golden Cliffs 3 and Antiviruz 4.
I tried double barracks for first time there, 1 for real and 1 closed for enemy distraction.
The fake Barracks was placed in the passage towards map center + 4 towers, 2 at left / 2 below.

It was a funny move, because Bucek100 believed I built the barracks in a noob place , and hold position there with Xbows waiting possible recruits. Sadly... I couldn't win the game, since they started shooting building, and I tried to surrounded them, but their mass xbows killed my army just too fast. Antiviruz had something as well, but wasn't enough.

Since I was following all replays, I saw in later stages of tournament, that Mulberry did the "Golden Cliffs block" playing at that same location 3.
However he did it with farms, and that game was vs Romek + Florek, if you remember there is even a showcast.

These were my comments after playing my first tourney match 2v2 in golden cliffs loc 3.
viewtopic.php?p=14156#p14156
Haha, do you remember that touchful moment Mulberry was saying when Mike + Frans beated To + Fu.

Anyway, if people wants to remember Mulberry as the father of blocking, I'll take the grandpa title.

---------------------------------------
Respect builder rush, I remember the days when this was starting to be seen, tough never forget that people used to play with max 16 labourers and 3 quarries, so it wasn't an annoyance at all (like with 35 labourers).
Very nice days, you could call a "noob" someone who had 20 labouerers because he had more than he needed for "3 quarries" which was considered the best value for having a decent working base.

But this kind of thoughts changed... maybe while I was 4 months absent of playing KaM, something changed.
When I arrived again to play, there were many new names and I witnessed the first "4 quarries" basebuilds.
viewtopic.php?p=13564#p13564

[Krom]

Entrance blocking is not an exploit IMO

[sado1]

some players don't have enough skill

:*

[Debaron]

So, any ETA for when the changes will be implemented? I would love to see the shield bonus effective for one, on the r4179 release there's still a lot of same tactics of xbows+lance/pikes. Would love to see some more variety! Don't want to sound impatient though. Really appreciate all the work and passion you programmers and testers are putting into it

[pawel95]

Well we are testing the shield patch now for a longer time. However there are still some discussions, if the swordmen aren´t too strong now. So I´m not sure really,but I think that the Remake team will decide to test it little bit more, before the official release will come.

[Lewin]

I wanted to play enough games in the beta first before responding here. I think I played about 70 games now in the beta so I know pretty well how the new changes work ingame.
...
To

Thanks for your detailed thoughts. It sounds like we lowered the trade loss ratio too much in this patch, I think we'll increase it.

I know of 2 main exploits:

1. Use builders to empty enemy towers
2. Cover all of the enemies territory with houseplans/fields

Those are also the two main exploits I know of. I'd like to at least test some fixes for builder rushes, for example blocking building within the range of towers, or making labourers refuse to walk within range of an enemy tower.

Oh , there are well over 2 exploits , and some very dirty tricks that can be used.
Ill look for a screenshot of a game i had recently.

If you have time please write about all the exploits you know of so we can discuss them and look at fixing them. It probably deserves a new topic, so feel free to start one. This is addressed to anybody not just EDMatt, so if you know of exploits that we do not, please start a topic about them.

Entrance blocking is not an exploit IMO

I agree, people use entrance blocking in Starcraft and other games too. It costs time and resources so it's an investment, I don't think it's an exploit or overpowered. In KaM you usually can't entirely block an entrance with a building anyway so you can still sneak past.

So, any ETA for when the changes will be implemented? I would love to see the shield bonus effective for one, on the r4179 release there's still a lot of same tactics of xbows+lance/pikes. Would love to see some more variety! Don't want to sound impatient though. Really appreciate all the work and passion you programmers and testers are putting into it

Well the changes are implemented in r4297, send me a private message with your email address if you want the link to download it (we don't post beta/testing versions publicly). The public release with these changes will come with all of the new features we've been working on, which will take some time to finalise and test (there will be more test releases to find bugs in the new features).

[Plaguesworn]

It has been quite nagging me for a while that one can seriously even consider giving axefichters and/or swordfighters another additional bonus. Taking into acount that they already have significant attack bonus. I see several grave problems if such an increasement would be implemented. First off, in the past swordfighters were usually only equipped when one had ran out of horses. If swordfighters would not only have an attack bonus, but also a defense bonus against ranged units, mounted units their popularity will even be more harmed. And lets not forget that the attack value of ranged units was decreased a while ago and that their targeting system has been altered as well.

Also, this second bonus axefighters and/or swordfighters would get is by implication contradictory to the rock paper scissors system. Mounted units are already a counter to ranged units. Giving ranged units two foes that are able to take them out quite easily, together with the enfeeblement of these ranged units will mess with the entire war engine. I thought ranged units were supposed to be an important unit on the battlefield. Mounted units were already hard for ranged units to take down. Let alone an axefighter and/or swordfighter with not only an attack bonus but also a defense bonus to these ranged units.

Moreover, axefighters were always a stable unit. The only factor that makes them less popular than lance carriers is the fact that nowadays it's alot more difficult to gather wood quickly. But that has rather to do with the trade ratios of the market place, more specifically those to obtain tree trunks.

Making axefighters more popular, that is without making other units less popular (all ranged units and all mounted units would be harmed if axefighters and swordfighters would get their second bonus), can simply be done by making it easier to produce timber, and not by needing more room like extra woodcutters need. Because the room extra woodcutters take in equals less space for farms and their fields. Which also makes mounted units less pupular due to a smaller corn production. This also makes the multiplayer sessions slower.

[The Dark Lord]

What do you mean with 'another additional bonus'? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[Plaguesworn]

e.g.: - leather armour + lance = attack value (25) & defence value (2)
- leather Armour + axe + wooden shield : attack value (25 + bonus of 10) é defence value (2)

that's how the bonus is currently present and always has been up until now in the game.

[The Dark Lord]

Don't forget that lance carriers have a bonus versus cavalry. And that bonus is way more useful than the tiny +10% attack that axe fighters have.

If swordfighters would not only have an attack bonus, but also a defense bonus against ranged units, mounted units their popularity will even be more harmed.

No, because now mounted units are actually the only units that can beat sword fighters.

And lets not forget that the attack value of ranged units was decreased a while ago and that their targeting system has been altered as well.

And they received a bonus again, so this argument is invalid. Only archers were affected by the way, crossbowmen are still the same.

Moreover, axefighters were always a stable unit. The only factor that makes them less popular than lance carriers is the fact that nowadays it's alot more difficult to gather wood quickly. But that has rather to do with the trade ratios of the market place, more specifically those to obtain tree trunks.

So you blame a building that hasn't been around for a very long time for the fact that people prefer to make lance carriers? Should everyone be obliged to trade tree trunks in order to make axe fighters?

[dicsoupcan]

not to mention you need a lot more leather armourmakers to get the same amount of axefighters as you need for lance carriers, but they die equally fast to ranged in the current release wich is the reason no one bothers with axefighters.

[Plaguesworn]

Don't forget that lance carriers have a bonus versus cavalry. And that bonus is way more useful than the tiny +10% attack that axe fighters have.

Only when facing mounted units. And cavalry isn't as popular in the current format as it once was. Furthermore their popularity as an ranged unit counter will decrease because axefighters and/or swordfighters will become an ranged unit counter as well if this alteration would be implemented.

No, because now mounted units are actually the only units that can beat sword fighters.

Then why put resources into the production of horses if you get the same effect as a regular axefoghter and/or swordfighter?

And they received a bonus again, so this argument is invalid. Only archers were affected by the way, crossbowmen are still the same.

I was actually more concerned about the fate of crossbowmen, as you said 'remain the same'. However they went through several changes.

So you blame a building that hasn't been around for a very long time for the fact that people prefer to make lance carriers? Should everyone be obliged to trade tree trunks in order to make axe fighters?

I'm not obliging anyone, but others appear the do so. That is by adding this shield bonus. I was just showing a possibility to shed some light onto the axefighter. An other possibility could be to add a few more tree trunks for example in the storehouse at the beginning of a multiplayer session.