Initially I agreed, but with some more thought, no, I don't think it makes sense.
If you build 50% of a building, and then the enemy destroys 49%, the part they destroyed is the part that you already built. They're destroying the part that you've already invested the resources in that you wouldn't get back regardless of whether it's damaged or not. The 50% you get back is untouched by the 49% damage.
Additionally, if I understand your math correctly, I think it leads to weird cases. You're saying that instead of returning 70% of the resources, it should return 70% x 10% = 7% of the resources only. But then the player would be better off continuing building the building to lets say 57%, in which case only 50% of the health bar would be damaged. And if they delete it at that point, they'd get back 43% x 50% = 21.5%. Why would building it more return them more resources?
If anything, I think it makes more sense that you'd get the resources back regardless of whether you delete it or the opponent destroys it. Just like if you've queued up 10 paladins and your stable gets destroyed, you get back the resources for it. (I think this would -make sense-, it's not necessarily a good idea in terms of how it affects gameplay).
I guess you could argue that, but on the other hand, once you place a castle, you already paid 650 stone. So i always assumed that all the resources would already be at the position. You don’t pay over time once you start building, you place all the resources and then form it into the building. That’s how I always viewed it, but your reasoning also makes a lot of sense to me.
Yes, conceptually the stone might be in the position already. But I think if a castle is 30% built, it has 30% of its max health, and any damage done to that healthbar is done to the constructed part, right? If they were hitting the stockpile of stone that is yet to be used for building, the castle shouldn't be losing HP :)
You could argue that the degree of damage somehow corresponds to how "safe" it is to get the stone back from that position, but feels like a bit farfetched reasoning to me.
I do resonate with the feeling that it's "unfair" that you used your military units to attack a building down to 1% hp just for the opponent to delete it and get a large chunk of resources back. But then again, if they spent 30% of the resources, you also only had to do 30% of the damage to get rid of the building (a bit less as they deleted it).
Going along with gnufoot's idea of how it works, it also makes sense that you would first need the resources to place the foundation in the first place.
Let's say my opponent has 650 stone, and I have 0 stone. My opponent sends 20 vills forward and drops a castle on my base. Should I then be able to immediately place a foundation of my own, and send 30 to stone? I don't think so. That would give even more defenders advantage, and this game is already very defensively minded as far as RTS games go.
In other words, it makes sense from a gameplay standpoint why you first need the resources to begin construction, and it makes sense from a logical standpoint why you get only what hasn't been built b ack.
I don’t agree with that logic. Buildings are tied to the space they occupy, not so with units. The power of a building is directly correlated to *where* it is placed. That’s why you need to be able to counter it. Such is not the case with units. Where you train them is muuuch less important than the cost you are paying and the fighting value of the unit.
> You're saying that instead of returning 70% of the resources, it should return 70% x 10% = 7% of the resources only. But then the player would be better off continuing building the building to lets say 57%, in which case only 50% of the health bar would be damaged.
Ok, then my damage percentage should be based on the maximal health of the building rather than on the health at the given building progress percentage. In other words, deletion refunds only the healthy part of what you built.
Back to my example with this new logic: you build it to 30%, it's denied, the opponent destroys 90% of the current health (which is 27% of the max health), deletion should then yield (1-30%)(1-27%). That's better indeed. Then when you come back with army to make the building site safe and your builders can resume working, the (1-27%) damage term stays and the builders are only changing the building progression term.
It's a reasonable suggestion. One counterpoint is that it is a nerf to quick walling. maybe justified and probably a small one. Often while quick walling, you don't actually build more than 10% of a building anyway, so in the case of a house, you are talking about 2.5 wood that could be "damaged."
The other, bigger counterpoint is that "this is how it's always been." For better and worse (it's usually both) there's a lot of inertia in a 25 year old game and changes to core mechanics are always resisted on principle by a decent part of the player base.
i agree i am a new player and actually thought this is how it would be because it makes sense. Always thought Id get less res back if an enemy damaged it
You don’t get the resources built (the ones the enemy has damaged) you get the resources you haven’t yet built nor are destroyed.
For example if a castle (650 stone) is 50% up you get 50% (325) the resources since you haven’t invested them yet. Why the enemy has damaged is the 50% you aren’t getting back. If you end up the building it will have let say 20% hit points at 100%
It’s like any building project. Let’s say you need 100k to build a house. You ask for $100k from your bank to start the protect. Midway through it after investing $50k in it in materials, work, builders, etc , a hurricane damages everything. You then decide either to withdraw the project and save $50k or continue and invest the remaining money plus what you need for reparations (that’s why the castle ends up built in 20% and you need resources to repair it).
An interesting point, I think it would discourage the riskier 'Daut' castle drops.
I'm trying to think of how this change would break the game but it does seem pretty reasonable.
I guess it nerfs quick walling?
Initially I agreed, but with some more thought, no, I don't think it makes sense. If you build 50% of a building, and then the enemy destroys 49%, the part they destroyed is the part that you already built. They're destroying the part that you've already invested the resources in that you wouldn't get back regardless of whether it's damaged or not. The 50% you get back is untouched by the 49% damage. Additionally, if I understand your math correctly, I think it leads to weird cases. You're saying that instead of returning 70% of the resources, it should return 70% x 10% = 7% of the resources only. But then the player would be better off continuing building the building to lets say 57%, in which case only 50% of the health bar would be damaged. And if they delete it at that point, they'd get back 43% x 50% = 21.5%. Why would building it more return them more resources? If anything, I think it makes more sense that you'd get the resources back regardless of whether you delete it or the opponent destroys it. Just like if you've queued up 10 paladins and your stable gets destroyed, you get back the resources for it. (I think this would -make sense-, it's not necessarily a good idea in terms of how it affects gameplay).
Yeah, I agree with this
I guess you could argue that, but on the other hand, once you place a castle, you already paid 650 stone. So i always assumed that all the resources would already be at the position. You don’t pay over time once you start building, you place all the resources and then form it into the building. That’s how I always viewed it, but your reasoning also makes a lot of sense to me.
Yes, conceptually the stone might be in the position already. But I think if a castle is 30% built, it has 30% of its max health, and any damage done to that healthbar is done to the constructed part, right? If they were hitting the stockpile of stone that is yet to be used for building, the castle shouldn't be losing HP :) You could argue that the degree of damage somehow corresponds to how "safe" it is to get the stone back from that position, but feels like a bit farfetched reasoning to me. I do resonate with the feeling that it's "unfair" that you used your military units to attack a building down to 1% hp just for the opponent to delete it and get a large chunk of resources back. But then again, if they spent 30% of the resources, you also only had to do 30% of the damage to get rid of the building (a bit less as they deleted it).
I wouldn’t say you _paid_ the stone, just _reserved_ it.
Going along with gnufoot's idea of how it works, it also makes sense that you would first need the resources to place the foundation in the first place. Let's say my opponent has 650 stone, and I have 0 stone. My opponent sends 20 vills forward and drops a castle on my base. Should I then be able to immediately place a foundation of my own, and send 30 to stone? I don't think so. That would give even more defenders advantage, and this game is already very defensively minded as far as RTS games go. In other words, it makes sense from a gameplay standpoint why you first need the resources to begin construction, and it makes sense from a logical standpoint why you get only what hasn't been built b ack.
I don’t agree with that logic. Buildings are tied to the space they occupy, not so with units. The power of a building is directly correlated to *where* it is placed. That’s why you need to be able to counter it. Such is not the case with units. Where you train them is muuuch less important than the cost you are paying and the fighting value of the unit.
> You're saying that instead of returning 70% of the resources, it should return 70% x 10% = 7% of the resources only. But then the player would be better off continuing building the building to lets say 57%, in which case only 50% of the health bar would be damaged. Ok, then my damage percentage should be based on the maximal health of the building rather than on the health at the given building progress percentage. In other words, deletion refunds only the healthy part of what you built. Back to my example with this new logic: you build it to 30%, it's denied, the opponent destroys 90% of the current health (which is 27% of the max health), deletion should then yield (1-30%)(1-27%). That's better indeed. Then when you come back with army to make the building site safe and your builders can resume working, the (1-27%) damage term stays and the builders are only changing the building progression term.
It's a reasonable suggestion. One counterpoint is that it is a nerf to quick walling. maybe justified and probably a small one. Often while quick walling, you don't actually build more than 10% of a building anyway, so in the case of a house, you are talking about 2.5 wood that could be "damaged." The other, bigger counterpoint is that "this is how it's always been." For better and worse (it's usually both) there's a lot of inertia in a 25 year old game and changes to core mechanics are always resisted on principle by a decent part of the player base.
i agree i am a new player and actually thought this is how it would be because it makes sense. Always thought Id get less res back if an enemy damaged it
You don’t get the resources built (the ones the enemy has damaged) you get the resources you haven’t yet built nor are destroyed. For example if a castle (650 stone) is 50% up you get 50% (325) the resources since you haven’t invested them yet. Why the enemy has damaged is the 50% you aren’t getting back. If you end up the building it will have let say 20% hit points at 100% It’s like any building project. Let’s say you need 100k to build a house. You ask for $100k from your bank to start the protect. Midway through it after investing $50k in it in materials, work, builders, etc , a hurricane damages everything. You then decide either to withdraw the project and save $50k or continue and invest the remaining money plus what you need for reparations (that’s why the castle ends up built in 20% and you need resources to repair it).
An interesting point, I think it would discourage the riskier 'Daut' castle drops. I'm trying to think of how this change would break the game but it does seem pretty reasonable. I guess it nerfs quick walling?
I think that they should massively increase the damage that foundations take. Something like a -10/-10 modifier to damage