Actual Fort suggestions
Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:37 pm
Current issues with Fort:
Stage 2 (Flags) has barely any impact for the defenders
If you plan to do a bottom floor defense there is barely any incentive to engage in stage 2 as the defender, the extra damage from artillery is so minimal it doesn't make any real difference in your defensive power. Rather it accelerates stage 2 by bigger doorhits and gets you to the next stage faster.
If the defending force outmatches the attackers, stage 2 can drag on forever, combined with the low incentive to do well in stage2 just skipping this stage is encouraged.
Stage 3 (Lord) is too long
Stage 3 takes too long, it becomes boring and if the defenders aren' beat after 4-5 assaults it becomes an awkward waiting game for both sides.
Defender/Attacker advantages are unbalanced
Current design of the Fort heavily favours the Defenders. Defenders only need to be able to hold a funnel which requires very little organisation beyond building a decent wb setup and spamming aoe on the entry in contrast to the attackers who have a much higher organization requirement and way more increments that can make the assault a failure. I am saying the workload is unbalanced.
How to fix all that:
This is how the current system moves fort progression forward:
Stage 1 (Preptime) Outter door falls after certain time leading to stage 2
Stage 2 (Flags) Depending on how well the attackers do with the flags inner drops superfast or at snailspeed.
Stage 3 (Lord) Timer for defenders victory start. Fort ends when either the timer runs out or Lord dies.
This is how i imagine how it should work:
Stage 1 (Preptime) Outter door falls after certain time leading to stage 2
Stage 2 (Flags) Timer for defender victory starts. Ram hits inner door 0-10% (or whatever value is balanced) no flags/no progress!
Stage 3 (Lord) Fort ends when either the timer runs out or Lord dies.
Why is this an improvement?
It reduces awkward decisionmaking for the defenders like letting the enemy take flags prematurely to progress the Fort.
There is no point in having 3rd stage anyways if you can't breach outter wall properly or hold flags at any efficiency.
Dominating or skirmishing stage 2 as the Defender is a viable strategy to win.
Delaying the enemy is a viable defender strategy now to rob the attacker valuable time.
Stage 2 now directly affects stage 3 in how much time you have to breach the final line of defense.
Time becomes a resource instead of a hassle.
All of this gives the defenders more tools to do something to stop the attackers.
Which means Stage 3 can be rebalanced to get alot rougher for the defenders without giving the attackers "free fort".
Imo Fort timer should be 60min max. after the outter walls drop.
Please give me your thoughts about the consequences this change could have.
extra: After successful Defender defense push the active zone to the middle (Praag,DW,TM) this stops zone repetitiveness and gives a good opportunity for a counter offensive and makes campaign more dynamic.
Stage 2 (Flags) has barely any impact for the defenders
If you plan to do a bottom floor defense there is barely any incentive to engage in stage 2 as the defender, the extra damage from artillery is so minimal it doesn't make any real difference in your defensive power. Rather it accelerates stage 2 by bigger doorhits and gets you to the next stage faster.
If the defending force outmatches the attackers, stage 2 can drag on forever, combined with the low incentive to do well in stage2 just skipping this stage is encouraged.
Stage 3 (Lord) is too long
Stage 3 takes too long, it becomes boring and if the defenders aren' beat after 4-5 assaults it becomes an awkward waiting game for both sides.
Defender/Attacker advantages are unbalanced
Current design of the Fort heavily favours the Defenders. Defenders only need to be able to hold a funnel which requires very little organisation beyond building a decent wb setup and spamming aoe on the entry in contrast to the attackers who have a much higher organization requirement and way more increments that can make the assault a failure. I am saying the workload is unbalanced.
How to fix all that:
This is how the current system moves fort progression forward:
Stage 1 (Preptime) Outter door falls after certain time leading to stage 2
Stage 2 (Flags) Depending on how well the attackers do with the flags inner drops superfast or at snailspeed.
Stage 3 (Lord) Timer for defenders victory start. Fort ends when either the timer runs out or Lord dies.
This is how i imagine how it should work:
Stage 1 (Preptime) Outter door falls after certain time leading to stage 2
Stage 2 (Flags) Timer for defender victory starts. Ram hits inner door 0-10% (or whatever value is balanced) no flags/no progress!
Stage 3 (Lord) Fort ends when either the timer runs out or Lord dies.
Why is this an improvement?
It reduces awkward decisionmaking for the defenders like letting the enemy take flags prematurely to progress the Fort.
There is no point in having 3rd stage anyways if you can't breach outter wall properly or hold flags at any efficiency.
Dominating or skirmishing stage 2 as the Defender is a viable strategy to win.
Delaying the enemy is a viable defender strategy now to rob the attacker valuable time.
Stage 2 now directly affects stage 3 in how much time you have to breach the final line of defense.
Time becomes a resource instead of a hassle.
All of this gives the defenders more tools to do something to stop the attackers.
Which means Stage 3 can be rebalanced to get alot rougher for the defenders without giving the attackers "free fort".
Imo Fort timer should be 60min max. after the outter walls drop.
Please give me your thoughts about the consequences this change could have.
extra: After successful Defender defense push the active zone to the middle (Praag,DW,TM) this stops zone repetitiveness and gives a good opportunity for a counter offensive and makes campaign more dynamic.