The appeal of the constructor is that it can slow the enemy. It has already been severely nerfed by switching to the prefab system and depletable wood supply, but then having an uruk break through in 2 seconds cos he has an iron axe combined with the constructor not being able to patch it, cos if you carry wood now, you loose it, means that constructor became effectively useless in slowing down the enemy. This makes playing constructor on lower player numbers mostly just detrimental to the team, which is sad, cos I like playing constructor.
-
Make sure to read the forum rules before creating a new thread or commenting on someone else's thread. The forum rules can be read on this page.
Random attacker classes should not get better axe than constructor.
- Thread starter NEMO_CZ
- Start date
Yes I agree that random classes being able to break the wood faster just because they have an axe is problematic. I need to speak to Cotander and find out how we could solve this issue.
In the next update or the one after, we will make wood (and more generally all materials) drop from a player upon death, just like ladders right now.
More types of placeables will be added with constructor rework part II, but it will only be possible after the implementation of a silver shop, which we will be working on soon.
In the next update or the one after, we will make wood (and more generally all materials) drop from a player upon death, just like ladders right now.
More types of placeables will be added with constructor rework part II, but it will only be possible after the implementation of a silver shop, which we will be working on soon.
I think there should be another solution than just straight up nerfing all classes ability to break blocks. Cause there are chokepoints that if setup properly it becomes completely unwinnable for attackers (Helm's Throne room). I think constructors ability to stonewall matches leads to people disconnecting because it feels impossible to break a siege. so I'd like the kit to stall for time (1-2 min) but require combat classes to hold it.
if attackers go constructor to counter the siegeworks that means they lose their numbers lead and their ability to take and hold flags.
I do agree that blocks should be retained & there should be improvements made to the constructor system. I like the constructor but the game is fun when theres momentum, and stonewalling a siege for 5+ minutes kills lobbies. Shifting the blocks to incorperate more stone could also be a fun idea, making specific ways to through specific siegeworks.
maybe creating or empowering the combat stats of a anti-constructor kit? (ladderer, less stats than soldier, more than constructor, w/ axe/pickaxe to break) could be interesting too
if attackers go constructor to counter the siegeworks that means they lose their numbers lead and their ability to take and hold flags.
I do agree that blocks should be retained & there should be improvements made to the constructor system. I like the constructor but the game is fun when theres momentum, and stonewalling a siege for 5+ minutes kills lobbies. Shifting the blocks to incorperate more stone could also be a fun idea, making specific ways to through specific siegeworks.
maybe creating or empowering the combat stats of a anti-constructor kit? (ladderer, less stats than soldier, more than constructor, w/ axe/pickaxe to break) could be interesting too
The unwinnable point is a myth, constructor now has limited wood, any defenses eventually get destroyed. The problem is that rn the attackers are overpowered and the defenses don't matter much at all. The speed at which attackers can break barricade blocks is completely broken as they can do so even faster than the specialized constructor class.
I would also like to point out that Helm's Deep is my favorite map precisely because you get to spend more time on each flag instead of being a sprint like some other maps. This game mode is still named castle siege, not castle rush.
Thats fair, there has been a lot done which has helped stop the unwinnable match, I suppose the main problem i have with constructor in terms of balancing is that in exaggerates the problems that exist already given a maps layout/spawns. I do think in general Helm's Deep is one of the most well balanced maps. I'm looking forward to the constructor update part 2, cuz I want to see how the changes will impact play, and i do want to buff constructor more, looking into slowing down axes is something we could tack onto that. I still think its deeply unfun to throw yourself at siegeworks with just a sword just to get interrupted every 3 seconds.
I would say that in to destroy fortifications you don't usually rush them with a sword, but protect the constructor who can break them fast. Though I do still miss a mage like class for countering fortifications. The reason I preferred mage to what we have now is that mage had an AOE attack and was less precise in what he destroyed. The major problem with the iron axes is that all you have to do to defeat a 20 block wide wall is to mine 2 blocks for 2 seconds, and the new constructor doesn't even have an effective way to patch it.
Actually Helm's Deep would be a perfect map to introduce a wall busting class that like has to put down a bomb and maybe even protect that bomb for a short time before the fuse goes. The book mentions the "fire of Orthanc" multiple times - When it busts a hole in the Deeping wall, when it brings down the gate, and just blasting in the background during the battle.
A sapper class of some sort is definitely a good compromise, but I wouldn't want to see it be quite as powerful as mage or especially torcher could be on v2. That amount of damage blasts dealt combined with limited wood supply would more than likely be enough to ruin the utility that constructor fortifications bring, as you can't just spam patch like you could in v2. (Also, classes with ability to set ground on fire should be handled with caution, given how annoying fire overlay on hud is -- poison classes are annoying, but having to deal with fire hud on top of damage tick is significantly worse imo).
I think that a good way to go about solving the "random axe classes inherently break wood fast" aspect of this problem would be to remove constructor wood from the axe-efficient list of blocks in the server datapack, and explicitly give constructor (and possibly sapper) class axes better breaking efficiency. This would allow these classes to keep the shield disabling functionality while not necessarily being any faster to chop wood.
In 26.1+, there also seems to be a way to set shields to be disabled by certain weapons only, so you could use that modify all the axe weapons to use another item as base, add the tag to all shield classes, and achieve a similar result, but that requires more immediate class modifications, as well as give more work for subsequent class additions given that the constructor/ladderer/sapper niche is almost certainly going to be filled by significantly fewer classes than shield-disabling (it is now by a wide margin, and I don't think the addition of a sapper class to attacker side on every constructor-enabled map would be enough to disrupt that).
I don't think using wool as a drop-in replacement would work, since the breaking times are much shorter than wood, the block variation is more limited (even in 26.3) so barricades would have to be adjusted, and there'd need to be explanation for why fabric is being used as enemy repelling infrastructure (or trying to convince builders to allow it to be re-textured). Trying anything else as a drop-in replacement would suffer similar problems.
It could possibly function as an alternate option, but I'm hesitant on the idea of making constructor's base state more complex, when I consider it to already be unintuitive compared to how fast a new player is able to select it. Could be like a prestige/specialization/level-up upgrade of the sort that is being considered as one of the point shop use-cases.
Last edited: