Even if it takes a month to fix the new bugs, it's worth after all;DGive us new bugs 11
Even if it takes a month to fix the new bugs, it's worth after all;DGive us new bugs 11
Thank you this makes sense. As you say it takes discounting some issues to think it should be kept but I understand the attachment. Seems like reasoning that applies to a lot of the micro tricks that are common in high level play.Personally I think it's a similar exploit to "palisade scanning" and it should be gone, but I can see how some people kinda like it.
It's like an extra layer of gameplay. Since both players know about it they work with it, both doing it and avoiding it, therefore it can be experienced as depth. Also it has (I think) always been there so it's also perceived as part of the game at its core. I guess it could even be argued that it creates some "clutch moments".
you are very optimistic in how fast they are in fixing things. Are the most posts recentently about how pathing is totally screwed again and units will go in no straight lines if ordered to do something in close proximity :DEven if it takes a month to fix the new bugs, it's worth after all;D
How is it well balanced?
This is the part I'm struggling with. How is force deleting a unit to cheat intended projectile damage behavior a fun mechanic?
When you have ever seen DauT deleting the mangonel before the shot, you know its fun 11cost: deleting a mangonal
Effect: slightly increase splash damage + removing negate hill effects.
requires good timing and prediction or your mangonal is wasted e.g if your opponet splits away or avoids the attack.
Now how is that not fun and well balanced?
I can't think of any reason why it should be removed except for 1. historical accuracy (and clearly the game which allows a siege engine to move by itself is the best place for historical accuracy) 2. some sort of balance reason - in which case why not remove attack ground which has no drawback and better effect or 3. making the game simplier for new players - which while I am not opposed to (indeed I think many of the changes in DE which help with this are great) but I think is not worth the cost of removing a good tool/effect from players.
cost: deleting a mangonal
Effect: slightly increase splash damage + removing negate hill effects.
requires good timing and prediction or your mangonal is wasted e.g if your opponet splits away or avoids the attack.
Now how is that not fun and well balanced?
I can't think of any reason why it should be removed except for 1. historical accuracy (and clearly the game which allows a siege engine to move by itself is the best place for historical accuracy) 2. some sort of balance reason - in which case why not remove attack ground which has no drawback and better effect or 3. making the game simplier for new players - which while I am not opposed to (indeed I think many of the changes in DE which help with this are great) but I think is not worth the cost of removing a good tool/effect from players.
In the big picture you are right that something which has complex interactivity is desirable but a mechanic can feel unsatisfying when it subverts others that should be more important, as this does in the case of the hill defense bonus. The point of the hill defense bonus is to reward good positioning so to have an easy micro trick that can bail out to an even trade when someone gets outplayed in this way promotes reaction time and speed over forethought and awareness. This seems contrary to what AoE2 is about.cost: deleting a mangonal
Effect: slightly increase splash damage + removing negate hill effects.
requires good timing and prediction or your mangonal is wasted e.g if your opponet splits away or avoids the attack.
Now how is that not fun and well balanced?
I can't think of any reason why it should be removed except for 1. historical accuracy (and clearly the game which allows a siege engine to move by itself is the best place for historical accuracy) 2. some sort of balance reason - in which case why not remove attack ground which has no drawback and better effect or 3. making the game simplier for new players - which while I am not opposed to (indeed I think many of the changes in DE which help with this are great) but I think is not worth the cost of removing a good tool/effect from players.
Yes and i like it. I just makes sense aswell from risk reward standpoint and makes it better to fight against pushes from a hill which would be very hard otherwise.I'm pretty sure it's a feature not a bug.
It's not similar at all. You're describing a specific situation that applies mostly to a single unit mirror and defensively negates the effects of otherwise immutable topography with risk and application of skill.This bug is similar to palisade scanning and should be removed because it defies the mechanics of the game imo. The player who has the hill should be rewarded for map control and should keep the defense bonus of the hill no matter what even if this trick is hard to pull and requires precision.
Both are similar in the matter that they don't make sense at all. Why should deleting a mangonel gives more splash damage and negate hill bonus? Similarly why should you able to scan an opponent buildings in fog of war before scouting? Both don't make much sense whether they are difficult to execute or not.It's not similar at all. You're describing a specific situation that applies mostly to a single unit mirror and defensively negates the effects of otherwise immutable topography with risk and application of skill.
Scanning was ubiquitous and only required previous exploration and some intuition to almost completely subvert a core aspect of gameplay.