Jump to content


Photo

Buildings are too weak


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

Poll: Buildings should have more health

What do you think

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Excuse_me_princess

Excuse_me_princess
  • Members
  • 146 posts
  • Location:Holland
  • Projects:Black knightism
  •  Fanboy, maker of suggestions

Posted 09 April 2009 - 01:53 PM

First of all, I do not wish to backstab the RJ development team, by opening this topic.
I know it is their mod and they decide everything they want to change.
But I just like to know how others think about this matter.

I for one think that the buildings in BFME II are to weak and are thus destroyed to easily.
For instance, walls are breached too easily.
The fortress can fend for itself for a while, but the expansion just don't hold long enough.
You just can't mount a siege, all you need to do is preparing bigger army then you're enemy.
It has happend a few times that I was attacked by my enemy and that my heroes followed the trail of enemy's back to there base without me knowing it, then suddenly I get a message telling me that an enemy has been destroyed!?

So I'm just trhowing up a ball here:
Wouldn't it be a good idea to give buildings more helath so that they will last longer in combat.
In the end it means that you can really besiege a enemy before you destroy them.

Just let me know what you think.
Posted Image

"Is that all there is? ... no challenge? ... no resistance?"

"Fear...fear is the mind killer!"

"Don't see it as an obstacle, see it as an chalange!"

#2 Devon

Devon

    Dark Nerd of the Sith

  • Global Moderators
  • 5,886 posts
  • Location:Colbert Nation
  • Projects:RJ RotWK, Twilight of the Republic, HDLH
  •  T3A Chamber Member
  • Division:Community
  • Job:Global Moderator
  • Donated

Posted 09 April 2009 - 02:01 PM

Their health has actually been doubled since BFME2, but we're still looking into it.

yodasig2.png
My political compass
There's a story that the grass is so green...what did I see? Where have I been?


#3 {IP} Aridor

{IP} Aridor

    Redeemed Ranger

  • Project Team
  • 1,576 posts
  • Projects:RJ-ROTWK Mapping Team
  •  Loremaster

Posted 09 April 2009 - 02:04 PM

I agree. It doesn't make any sense how dudes with swords can destroy buildings.

#4 Excuse_me_princess

Excuse_me_princess
  • Members
  • 146 posts
  • Location:Holland
  • Projects:Black knightism
  •  Fanboy, maker of suggestions

Posted 10 April 2009 - 01:12 PM

Okay, just wanted to ask
Posted Image

"Is that all there is? ... no challenge? ... no resistance?"

"Fear...fear is the mind killer!"

"Don't see it as an obstacle, see it as an chalange!"

#5 Dunedain Lord

Dunedain Lord
  • Members
  • 195 posts
  • Location:From the Island of Numenor
  • Projects:beating Yoda

Posted 12 April 2009 - 01:51 AM

If any of u have ever played age of empires, you know all units throw fire into buildings to destroy.
I think that all the troops could do the same thing, although, i know how much work would be needed to do this, and
I know it most likely will not happen.
Just a suggestion, however.
"Now, men of Arnor. Let us restore the glory of the Dunedain! To battle, and victory!" King Argeleb

#6 Rafv Nin IV

Rafv Nin IV

    Vermin of Revora

  • Members
  • 1,224 posts
  • Projects:RPG Frontier

Posted 13 April 2009 - 01:49 AM

I disagree with raising the health of ALL buildings. In my opinion, harassment is an exciting part of the game and is integral to the BFME series. Resource-producing buildings should NOT receive a significant health/armor boost, because then you would need siege to take them out. This would do several bad things:

1) Remove harassment from the game, making the game less action-filled and less fun.
2) Replace troop micromanagement entirely, instead making the game focus on macromanagement and assembling waves of siege to assault the enemy.
3) Eliminate the need to actively protect oneself in early-mid game.
4) Give Goblins and Dwarves enormous OverPowered-ness, because you wouldn't be able to destroy Tunnels/Mineshafts, which cost 300, without siege, which costs at least 450, plus the units to protect your siege. In early game, tunnel factions could build a tunnel right in the opponent's base without worrying about it.

I could deal with other buildings receiving a health boost, but I think that the only ones which need it are Fortresses (and that's what the armor upgrade is for anyway, so they actually don't), Fort Expansions (these do need a boost), and Towers.

Edited by Rafv Nin IV, 13 April 2009 - 01:50 AM.

Posted Image


#7 Scryer

Scryer

    title available

  • Project Team
  • 565 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 April 2009 - 03:30 AM

The only set of buildings that are a little bit of an exception to what Rafv Nin IV said in the post before this one, is MOTE's buildings. I am always under the impression (in skirmish matches) that they are weak.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#8 {IP} Aridor

{IP} Aridor

    Redeemed Ranger

  • Project Team
  • 1,576 posts
  • Projects:RJ-ROTWK Mapping Team
  •  Loremaster

Posted 13 April 2009 - 06:52 PM

Buildings should require a little bit more to take them down. You can pretty much mop up a city without any siege. All you need siege for is to take down the stuff quicker. If you attack anywhere near a fort or defended building you should die unless you have siege.

#9 Excuse_me_princess

Excuse_me_princess
  • Members
  • 146 posts
  • Location:Holland
  • Projects:Black knightism
  •  Fanboy, maker of suggestions

Posted 13 April 2009 - 09:02 PM

[quote name='Rafv Nin IV' date='Apr 13 2009, 02:49 AM' post='702949']
Resource-producing buildings should NOT receive a significant health/armor boost, because then you would need siege to take them out.

Okay I have to admit this is true, resource buildings shouldn't be able too hold out for very long.
And to be honest I really think that at least the defensive structures (Fortress/upgrades, towers and walls)
Especially the walls, there's no point in building them, as soon as you notice they're being attacked you are too late.

Thought of something though:
Light (standard) and heavy walls.
Lets not waste any talk on what the main difference is.
But perhaps it would be nice to make the heavy walls garrison able and have build plots (on either side, so stairs can be build)

Now, bear with me for a moment.
They are bigger and stronger than normal walls.
So you can choose to do two things when upgrading:

1. If you want to use both build plots, you can choose to build stairs at one (inner wall so that units can climb the walls) and leadership/healing upgrades on the other.
So if you build either stairs or a leadership/healing upgrade, you can still use the other build plot.

2. Now if you choose to build a arrow tower or a catapult on one build plot, the other vanishes and the wall itself becomes the structure, so they do not become over powered.
So mainly you have one strong upgrade instead of units on the walls.

I just think this whole buildings issue can be solved by making the defense hold out longer.
Those heavy walls are just an idea, heavy walls without the upgrades could be very useful though, I just think it would be nice to add a little more siege possibilities to the game.
In the end it means that you can make more use of the Mordor siege towers, Isengard ladders and bombs.
And if you are playing against an ai player it becomes more challenging (Must admit that the ai has been improved a lot compared to the original BFME II)
Because the ai does (not yet) work with fortress maps (Minas Tirith/Morgul etc.) the heavy walls will allow an enemy to built some sort of fortress on any map.

Edited by Excuse_me_princess, 13 April 2009 - 09:10 PM.

Posted Image

"Is that all there is? ... no challenge? ... no resistance?"

"Fear...fear is the mind killer!"

"Don't see it as an obstacle, see it as an chalange!"

#10 Dunedain Lord

Dunedain Lord
  • Members
  • 195 posts
  • Location:From the Island of Numenor
  • Projects:beating Yoda

Posted 14 April 2009 - 01:52 AM

I disagree with raising the health of ALL buildings. In my opinion, harassment is an exciting part of the game and is integral to the BFME series. Resource-producing buildings should NOT receive a significant health/armor boost, because then you would need siege to take them out. This would do several bad things:

1) Remove harassment from the game, making the game less action-filled and less fun.
2) Replace troop micromanagement entirely, instead making the game focus on macromanagement and assembling waves of siege to assault the enemy.
3) Eliminate the need to actively protect oneself in early-mid game.
4) Give Goblins and Dwarves enormous OverPowered-ness, because you wouldn't be able to destroy Tunnels/Mineshafts, which cost 300, without siege, which costs at least 450, plus the units to protect your siege. In early game, tunnel factions could build a tunnel right in the opponent's base without worrying about it.

I could deal with other buildings receiving a health boost, but I think that the only ones which need it are Fortresses (and that's what the armor upgrade is for anyway, so they actually don't), Fort Expansions (these do need a boost), and Towers.

and...........what's wrong with siege? unels you were mordor, isengard, or goblins, of course
"Now, men of Arnor. Let us restore the glory of the Dunedain! To battle, and victory!" King Argeleb

#11 Rafv Nin IV

Rafv Nin IV

    Vermin of Revora

  • Members
  • 1,224 posts
  • Projects:RPG Frontier

Posted 14 April 2009 - 05:13 PM

My point is that harassment is a vital part of the game, and giving ALL buildings such a boost as requires siege to take them out eliminates harassment. You should not need siege to destroy a farm; you should just need a few soldiers.

However, it is rather annoying with the speed at which towers and fort expansions fall. However, instead of making walls/towers have a significant health/armor boost, I would rather see them become untargetable except by siege and heroes. In BFME2 patched 1.06, walls are unattackable except by siege. I do not know if this is the case with RJ, but it should be, and perhaps extended to towers as well.

Perhaps the Fortress Upgrade which grants it extra armor (Numenor Stonework, Morgul Sorcery, etc) should also make the Fortress untargetable except by siege?

Posted Image


#12 dojob

dojob

    AoW+DoW ftw

  • Project Team
  • 1,304 posts
  • Location:New York
  • Projects:Beta testing for WoA, RJ, and KotW
  •  Cav Rusher + Beta Tester

Posted 14 April 2009 - 10:50 PM

I agree with Rafv Nin 100% :shiftee2: Great idea on the forts as well, btw
Some helpful info on RotWK replays
Game Replays Forums; I am Panda Bear™
Awesome sig by TravTech :D PANDA POWER!!!
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

And please add Bear-mans


#13 {IP} Aridor

{IP} Aridor

    Redeemed Ranger

  • Project Team
  • 1,576 posts
  • Projects:RJ-ROTWK Mapping Team
  •  Loremaster

Posted 15 April 2009 - 12:27 AM

I'd like to see any stone building un-hurtalbe by troops

#14 Elvenlord

Elvenlord

    Polis Ranger

  • Advisors
  • 3,829 posts
  •  T3A Chamber Member

Posted 15 April 2009 - 12:33 AM

Well, on the flip side, you could say that the troops aren't destroying the building, but storming it.
But yeah, I think they are too weak. But I don't think anything but walls should be untargetable.

elvenlordbanner.jpg
 


#15 Guest_Valin_*

Guest_Valin_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2009 - 02:24 PM

I certainly agree, I wish buildings and especially walls and expansions had more health.

#16 Neth

Neth

    God's Shadow

  • Project Team
  • 930 posts
  • Projects:Taking over the world
  •  Technician of Execution

Posted 23 April 2009 - 09:48 PM

Buildings DEFINETLY need more health. Around 80% of my farms were destroyed by the ai when they sent in a few hordes of rohirrim.
Also, Why does the ai run straight past units and to destroy buildings?

Posted Image
Posted Image

This face means nothing, these hands hold nothing, these lungs are empty, these eyes are blind


#17 Rafv Nin IV

Rafv Nin IV

    Vermin of Revora

  • Members
  • 1,224 posts
  • Projects:RPG Frontier

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:53 PM

1) Rohirrim are supposed to be strong, and if there are multiple groups of them and you had no counter, that's just bad planning on your part.

2) Because buildings generally cost more than units, and units that cost a lot are tough to kill. The idea is to inflict the most amount of monetary damage to your opponent.

Posted Image


#18 Atomic

Atomic
  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • Location:University of Oklahoma

Posted 23 April 2009 - 11:33 PM

I vote yes. Fortress expansions feel too weak IMO, and can be quickly toppled by one or two units of basic, level 1 infantry. That's what siege engines and monsters are for.

Edited by Atomic, 23 April 2009 - 11:34 PM.


#19 WolfHound

WolfHound
  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 07:33 PM

I don't know, if my words would be of any use, but...

There is a file data\ini\armor.ini

Anyone can balance the vulnerability of buildings... For example, you might find this text:

CODE
Armor FarmArmor
Armor = DEFAULT 50%
Armor = CRUSH 1%
Armor = SLASH 75%
Armor = CHOP 100%
Armor = URUK 60%
Armor = CAVALRY 55%
Armor = SPECIALIST 30%
Armor = PIERCE 1%
Armor = FLAME 100%
Armor = FROST 75%
Armor = SIEGE 150%
Armor = STRUCTURAL 25%
Armor = HERO 75%
Armor = HERO_RANGED 5%
Armor = LOGICAL_FIRE 1%
Armor = CAVALRY_RANGED 2%
End

All those numbers are the percent of damage that different types of weapon deal to the building, as we can see the string
Armor = PIERCE 1% - means that usual arrows deal only 1 percent of usual damage
If you don't like that swordsmen and pikemen badly damage your farms, you might want to change the values:

Armor = SLASH 75%
Armor = SPECIALIST 30%; (I realy don't know why they called pikemen SPECIALIST :p))


to something like this:

Armor = SLASH 5%
Armor = SPECIALIST 5%


That would realy slow them down...
If you want flying units like dragon, nazgoul or eagle make additional damage to farms when flying into it you should add this string:

Armor = FLY_INTO 150% this will make them deal additional 50% damage

By spending about an hour editing armor.ini you might reach the balance that satisfies you.

In the begining of the file there are all choices of damage types available to use while describing your armor set.

P.S. By the way, this file also contains all armorsets for units, heroes, etc...

Edited by WolfHound, 22 August 2009 - 07:36 PM.

"Some XP" - said a Hero
"Some food" - said XP




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users