2014-02-07, 02:53:11
Alright. Let me start by saying that your feedback is really important and it might lead to changes to the current system in the beta. But as it is often the case, there are also other sides to consider.
The point has been raised that people might tend to be more careful or not commit to dangerous situations, just to keep their current streak, overall leading to a more passive playstyle. But you could also see it from the other way round. People with a high streak tend to have a big bounty, so you now have to reasons to hunt those players specifically. First you want to get that bounty and second you want to end his spree, to ensure that his gold income does not grow out of control.
Which brings me to another matter. With such a system in place, it very well may lead to good or unopposed players to quickly snowball out of control. You could say this is one way of shortening games ;) But this was not the reason for this change. Now you have to be more aware of your team. If someone struggles against his enemy, you have to make sure you help him from time to time. Otherwise you might regret it later, moreso than right now. I'm pretty sure that some people won't like that, but in the end, teamplay is always required. If you like it or not, it will be more important now.
Now on to another scenario. This is more related to possible comebacks. As I already said, the new system enables fast snowballing players and so might lead to more onesided games. It's debatable, if this removes chances for the defending team or just speeds up, what might have happened anyway. When the defending team is finally pushed into its own base, it generally has a small advantage, since they are surrounded by their own buildings and healing auras. Provided that the attacking team does not just steamroll over them, they now have some time to defend. At the beginning of that time you should usually see a situation like this:
the average bounty of the attackers is substantially higher than that of the defendes. This means, that anyone that is not on a streak, will get less gold on the attacker side. So there is a time, which the defending team might use to get itself up and use these higher bounties as a source for the possible comeback.
But if they don't manage that and the siege drags on, the new system should now lead to another, different situation. If the defenders can hold themselves up, this usually means, that they get equal or more kills than the attackers. So their bounties will rise and rise faster than the bounties of the attackers, since with the base factories destroyed, the bounties of the attackers won't increase by creep kills anymore (or at least not that fast).
So to make a short statement out of that: the new system should favor the defenders in short siege and favor the attackers on a longterm siege and so make both comebacks more likely, while also shortening games in certain situations.
Well, in (my) theory anyway. It very well may be, that it actually influences the game in a totally different way. But now you know, what the motivation behind the change was. If it turns out, that it harms the game more, than it helps it, I have to change / revert it again.
Also, regarding the multikills. The bonus gold has been removed, because of the killing sprees, there already is a pretty big gold source for players. Having both the sprees and the multikills seemed a bit too much. I thought about other rewards for multikills, like a bonus kill on your streak or something, but I'm not really sure about that.
The point has been raised that people might tend to be more careful or not commit to dangerous situations, just to keep their current streak, overall leading to a more passive playstyle. But you could also see it from the other way round. People with a high streak tend to have a big bounty, so you now have to reasons to hunt those players specifically. First you want to get that bounty and second you want to end his spree, to ensure that his gold income does not grow out of control.
Which brings me to another matter. With such a system in place, it very well may lead to good or unopposed players to quickly snowball out of control. You could say this is one way of shortening games ;) But this was not the reason for this change. Now you have to be more aware of your team. If someone struggles against his enemy, you have to make sure you help him from time to time. Otherwise you might regret it later, moreso than right now. I'm pretty sure that some people won't like that, but in the end, teamplay is always required. If you like it or not, it will be more important now.
Now on to another scenario. This is more related to possible comebacks. As I already said, the new system enables fast snowballing players and so might lead to more onesided games. It's debatable, if this removes chances for the defending team or just speeds up, what might have happened anyway. When the defending team is finally pushed into its own base, it generally has a small advantage, since they are surrounded by their own buildings and healing auras. Provided that the attacking team does not just steamroll over them, they now have some time to defend. At the beginning of that time you should usually see a situation like this:
the average bounty of the attackers is substantially higher than that of the defendes. This means, that anyone that is not on a streak, will get less gold on the attacker side. So there is a time, which the defending team might use to get itself up and use these higher bounties as a source for the possible comeback.
But if they don't manage that and the siege drags on, the new system should now lead to another, different situation. If the defenders can hold themselves up, this usually means, that they get equal or more kills than the attackers. So their bounties will rise and rise faster than the bounties of the attackers, since with the base factories destroyed, the bounties of the attackers won't increase by creep kills anymore (or at least not that fast).
So to make a short statement out of that: the new system should favor the defenders in short siege and favor the attackers on a longterm siege and so make both comebacks more likely, while also shortening games in certain situations.
Well, in (my) theory anyway. It very well may be, that it actually influences the game in a totally different way. But now you know, what the motivation behind the change was. If it turns out, that it harms the game more, than it helps it, I have to change / revert it again.
Also, regarding the multikills. The bonus gold has been removed, because of the killing sprees, there already is a pretty big gold source for players. Having both the sprees and the multikills seemed a bit too much. I thought about other rewards for multikills, like a bonus kill on your streak or something, but I'm not really sure about that.
This post has been brought to you by Sand - it's everywhere, get used to it.