So where is our community manager?
@AHQ_Official @EA_HighCommand @EA_Grasshopper There is apparently a new community manager for C&C Rivals. He goes by the name avinashEA on Reddit. However, I have not seen a single activity fro...
Forum Discussion
I've figured out that Nivmett have a strong bias against rushes from other strategy games, but you guys are also stuck with this mindset, that losing your harvester is so bad.
Lets say that someone starts the game with a harvester rush and makes 2x 40 cost JJT to do it. He gets the harvester, but than I follow up with Shockwaves or Snipers. He got 80 tib from the kill bounty and have 80 tib worth of troops that are useless for a while and just occupy population slots. He wanted those JJT squads and I want to mess him up, while he have them.
If such thing, as killing your harvester happens later on in the game, your opponent can easily follow up with something, that is good against your defending troops and snowball off of the harvester kill. I'm not gonna lose the game, if overleveled bikes are swarming my harvester, but I can lose it, if the huge harvester bounty makes the Avatar come out faster. A harvester kill is not supposed to speed up the economy, it should be just an option for punishing the opponent. Mostly tech players are who go hard for harvester kills and reducing the payoff could discourage them from doing it. It is not mandatory to rebuild your harvester. You can rebuild it whenever you want and agro decks can play without a harvester for a while.
I don't even want harvester kills to be efficient, against someone, who is on 1 harv and puts up a reasonable defense. I'm kinda biased towards agro play, but that is the closest to being balaced. It is better to use it as a starting/reference point and keep optimizing it.
I suggest 20 rebuild cost for all harvesters and 30 kill bounty. I could put together some economy change suggestions (not only about harvester), but it would be nice to have someone supportive around and not just biased idiots.
You see, we are going in completely different directions. I actually ENCOURAGE tech players to go for harvester kills to get their tech out faster. You are not guaranteed a harvester kill, but if you manage to pull it off, you get closer to your strong units. High risk, high reward is the motto here. So actually, the reward for destroying a harvester should be kept the same and not decreased at all.
What I absolutely want to DISCOURAGE are tech players who just sit back and rely on their 2 harv income, while just stalling the missile as good as possible. Why even defend your harvesters if you can just rebuild them for free anyway? This is why a rebuild cost is needed. A player who wants to stop the tech should be able to attack the harvesters and should actually be able to accomplish something. He did actions against the double harvesters, so he should be rewarded - by not having to fight stupidly strong tech units.
But what if aggro players kill the harvesters with the current system? Well, nothing happens. The aggro player gets tib, tib that he doesn't even need, while the tech player can just rebuild a harv for absolutely free, saving up for his tech more. THIS is why a harv rebuild cost is needed. I said 30 in my post above, I now think that's too low, make it the full 60.
Your idea of adding 20 tib rebuild cost to ALL harvesters, even the first one, will make rushing an auto win if you get the harvester kill. In the early game, tib generation is very low (in case you didn't know, tib generation ramps up over the game), and paying those extra 20 for someone without any tib left will most likely just make him loose.
@Hizsoo wrote:A harvester kill is not supposed to speed up the economy, it should be just an option for punishing the opponent. Mostly tech players are who go hard for harvester kills and reducing the payoff could discourage them from doing it.
A harvester kill should do BOTH! Risk loosing units in the process, but if you succeed, you get your good units out faster. And if he is double harvesting, halt his income for a bit.
@Hizsoo wrote:I don't even want harvester kills to be efficient, against someone, who is on 1 harv and puts up a reasonable defense.
That's why the first harv stays free. So single harv players don't get punished. Sure, the tech player (the attacker, in this case) gets his reward, but that is the fu***** point... he risked loosing units, got the harv kill, and therefore should be rewarded. And if you say "puts up a reasonable defense", well then the attacker obviously lost lots of units in the process, therefore making the loss higher than the gain for the harv kill.
Summary:
Tech players who aim for tech units by destroying harvesters actually do something to get to their units, therefore should be rewarded - by recieving the nice 80 tib, IF they destroy the harvester cost-effeciently.
Tech players who aim for tech units by sitting back, enjoying the view and double harvesting, should be punished if their precious harvesters DO get destroyed - by having to redeploy the second harv to the field for 60.
Aggro players who aim to halt enemy production and are attacking the harvesters should be rewarded - by ACTUALLY HALTING the enemy production.
Aggro players who fight tech players and just sit on the pads and hope for the best should be punished - by their opponent getting their tech out because nobody was there to stop them from doing so.
All this can be achieved simply by adding the above mentioned rebuild cost. Your suggestion will cause a lot of problems, especially with rushes, and double harv tech is still not punished enough. In addition, it would make the game more stale actually, since tech players don't attack the harvesters anymore (their goal is to get to tech, not to stop you from getting to yours), making the game more boring, and games against aggro decks will end in a surrender more often, since even a few harv losses can cause you the game.
So you get no support for your suggestion from my side. Might change that however, if you give some economy change suggestions, because for those I actually don't have that well thought out ones. I only have "decrease tib income later in the game moderately, increase it in the early game by a tiny bit", or "tib fields have halfed maximum output, therefore the maximum amount of tib gained from your 4 tib fields is halfed".
When the game is about running around harvesters is pretty awful, with the hex tile movement of the game and I consider it as a problem,
just like Clash Royale should move furher away from when bridgespam was always the answer.
I think I keep my opinion about this to a new post.
Harvesters kills being a high risk? It is kind of a funny thing to say. It is a relly linear thing to do and don't require much skill. It is easy on some maps and harder on others. If you don't want to charge the pads on a map with 2 pads, there can be little risk in harassing the enemy harvester. If that is the nature of harassing harvester in this game, than make it more linear with less payoff.
There should be ways to encourage intaracting with your opponent in a PvP game. I'm not that sure about this, but having units in the game, that are strong against all unit types, is rather the answer against this.
The high risk lies in investing into a harvester rush, but loosing all your units without getting the kill. This throws you back a lot and your opponent can counter, destroying your harvester.
Having units that are good against everything is anti-fun. You feel like there is nothing you can do once those are deployed. Currently, tech kinda feels that way, not 100%, but quite like that, and you don't really have options to stop them. Even killing 3 harvesters does nothing, and tech units get deployed anyways.
Featured Places
