ECA discussion, Design Flaw? Options

[Mizo]

Hello , I'd like to discuss about a certain point that was brought up in a previous threads about ECA, more like them as a faction being flawed by design and gameplay. While I do agree that current ECA has ALOT of problems, its not the design's fault ( well kinda). I wanted to write this just so that I wouldn't deviate from the previous thread. This also would make a nice discussion that are all collected in one place, rather than the constantly scattered Skype bits.

Before I start talkinga about ECA I need to shed a topic about the concept of a defensive faction in RTS, since I do usually play the more defensive factions in any RTS game I play with, and might provide a nice insight. Defensive factions in general require a completely different mindset when playing with or against them, that is you have to excpet the game to last longer compared to other faction matchups. Think about this logically, if a defensive faction could be killed off in 10 minutes, what's the point in choosing them to begin with? Or if they were able to kill of an opponent in 10 minutes, then wow, are they really that defensive. That's kinda OP. In order to have a good design, a defensive faction needs to fit this critereas that I see them core in my opinion :

- The faction needs to have superior Defensive units compared to other factions, THey can range from defensive themed untis or just static defenses. 2 core features that they need to have is their limited mobility and their cost efficiency. meaning a defensive unit can outpreform 2-3 offensive units of the same role and price range. This does mean that they would naturally have good anti-harass mechanics.

- The faction needs to have limited harassment capabilities. if you really wanted to up the harassment, then you'd have to nerf the Anti-harassment capabilities that faction owns.

- The faction needs to have its offensive capabilities limited in either weaker firepower or lesser number due to Cost/Build Time/Accssebility. However that doesn't mean they should have less options in their offensive arsenal compared to other factions. This would encourage alot of unit preservation, and tactical skirmishes.

- They should have a steady power curve, meaning that they should naturally suffer at one point of the game, more than how other faction suffer at. A weak early/mid game with a very strong late game is a good power curve.


On to ECA, which fill most of these criterias while not acheiving others to the point. I will now list what are the flaws this faction has and some fan opinions to fix their metagame :

- ECA is almsot immune to harass in the early game, possessing very strong map control, and in addition to that, very strong harass potential due to some of its untis namely Gepards/Lynx breaking the 'long build time' rule that was supposed to limit their offensive capabilities, as well as having their entire arsenal unlocked by default. Just to give you a picture here, ECA was suppsoed to have long build times on units to put an emphasis on them relying on static defense creeping and to cut their harassment potential if they do choose to go defensive, while abstaining from them being Russia number 2 if they go full offensive. People complained about ECA not being aggressive enough, so alot of build times got cut. All this pushed into a more mobile approach to a faction that already excels in static combat
A/ Gepards BT from 14 to 12
B/ Leopards BT from 22 to 16 or 18 ( cant remember)
C/ Mole Minelayers BT from 20 to 15
D/ Tigers also got a lower BT, can't remember the numbers exactly.
E/ Lynx go BT from 15 to 5 .....Jeesus.....

This did push ECA's offensive way ahead, while the issue will probably get semi-fixed in 2.0 with content seperation, this is an analysis on current ECA power.

- ECA's late game had been massively buffed, thanks to the fact that due to infantry cost reductions, cheaper fortifications, easier tech up , cheaper start, you arrive to late game faster and in a much better shape compared to 1.802. Keep in mind, in 1.802, ECA's late game was alreaady good as it is. In addition to all that, Claymores were added as well, and venoms would provide them with a new option for late game spam.

- ECA doesn't really have a large weak point in any stages of the game, except maybe during the mid game, during tier 1, and early tier 2. Playing against China, for example, you gotta survive until you get atleast 2 howetzers, then you are on the safe side. Due to a cheaper start, its easier to achieve that.

- ECA's vlate game is OP to say the least, thanks to its very good GP roster, howetzer spam, and the fact that you can even produce claymores on a mass production scale when your eco supports it. Oh , did I forget to meantion about procotols? Having in mind that in vlate game, you are probably extremely fortified and very hard to beat in the first place. The only real factions that can actually deal with it is Russia and maybe China, the rest can just sit there and cry.

- ECA's Anti-harassment is too strong alongside their harass potential being almost on par with other offensive faction. That's a design flaw. It's either or , not both.

- ECA doesn't seem to be struggling that much in the Early-Mid game, which is supposed to be their struggling point. Heck in fact, if you go against me often, mid game is where you go to hell due to harriers, the strongest T1 unit in the game. Back then, ECA was struggling to keep even its primary supplies alive during those stages, relying on mines and good positioning of defenses. All that now is made easier, but they got even more buffed with accumilative buffs with its units and cheaper start. True that ECA back then was unplayable in 1v1 High level games, while being barely playable in team games, but they still proved to be strong when reaching late game. i do think we went overboard here.

- Some of the battlegroups are broken, Especially the mech batallion group not having the correct price tag. Harriers are also too strong for T1 air unit that doesn't need any GP unlock.

**** Suggested Fixes by Knjaz would be to rollback all the BTs of their units, wiht maybe the Lynx being on 12 seconds, and locking claymores and Harriers in a GP unlock.


Now some of you are like " Durr what about Howetzers?" what about them? They've been in the game for 3 and a half years and now you start to complain about them lol. Back then ECA was extremely underpowered even with hwoetzers and now you are trying to convince me they are broken because of them? No, my friend. it's not the mechanic itself at fault here but rather the progression to reach that point, made easier. Howetzer mechanic is extremely powerful, but keep in mind that without it, ECA doesn't have any fast respond unit that is effective in tier 2, except for bulldogs. All other factions either have jets, Invincible choppers, Tunnel mechanic , Fast mobile units, while ECA lacks any mobility unit besides its air units and pandurs , which both get denied in tier 2. The mechanic itself is needed to compliment this weakness. Besides how often can ECA spam howetzers in 1v1s? THere is space restriction and if they spam them, then they are restricting space for either more defences, more production facilities or more secondary economy since most maps are medium or small sized. The real problem here is Claymore, whcih is abit too tanky, but if this problem gets fixed, then they can easily be killed just like any other artillery. Besides there is the magical 'x' botton that spreads your units in apart, in addition to the fact that howetzers are innaccurate in addition to then requiring atleast half of their salvo to take an artillery or 2 out depending on how close they are to each other, in addition to the fact that you are limited to 6 shots per 2 minutes, hence baiting howetzer shots can be a very smart way to really box in ECA and beat them up. Having multiple attack groups is key, there is pretty much little ECA can do besides Howetzers if they get boxed in like that. If there is one thing strong about Howetzers is not about them but more about the fact ECA gets them faster and in a better shape. Maybe making them 3k would be enough of a nerf to compensate for ECA's better early and mid game.

" Durr ECA is boring, and not aggressive enough" ...well then wait for 2.0 . Aggressive play is opposite to the core playstyle ECA is intended to have, Wolfgang being the subverse general, will hold that candle for you. He'll have both Good offensive capabiltiy and Defensive capability and am expecting him to be pretty imba but who knows. Current ECA plays alot like Wilem , who's the turtle General, so no wonder you'd find that concept boring. Nevertheless it's really up to player's preference. I for one, like to go aggressive ECA, by base crawling and artillery attacks from a far. Call this cheap, or coward play, but everything is fair in war, and am happy ROTR provides all sorts of playstyles for every type of RTS player out there. If you don't like the turtlish approach ECA has, and think that you can come up with a better design idea, then please share. I find it hard to come up with anything ( lol not really, keep reading ) that would make ECA distinctive and interesting at the same time while sticking to the defensive theme. If you don't like the Defensive theme on a faction, then tell me what would ECA specialize in without overlapping with Russia/USA or making them generic?
They're an experimental faction sure, but they're working fine, otherwise everyone would've just rejected the faction all together when they first came out. Do they fit in the meta? Nope, hence why you gotta fight em with a different mindset as I stated above. You gotta adapt your playstyle.


================================================================================
=================================================================================
=============

Now here is my idea for an ECA redesign, and please don't take this part of the discussion seriously from this point on. Am just sharing my fan faction I guess


Defense overhawl, in which almost all defenses needs to be garrisoned. Their style would focus on unit garrisons rather than just building automated defenses, the option of having automated defenses is still there albiet with a build limit. THis means that you should rely on your army that is garrisoned, allowing you to both defend and be mobile at the same time. This also means that there's gonna be a severe downgrade on ECA's overall defensive capability in favor of a more mobile approach. I'll explain further :

1 / Combat pits, would replace both the gaurd towers and Mortar pits. What this is, is basically an empty emplacement serrounded by sandbags acting as a lgiht defense of sort. Fairly cheap , fast to build. Garrison a Felin inside and you'd get an MG Pit, which would be anti-infantry ( possibly shooting through buildings and terrain). You can go stealth or observation mode with that if you get prepared defenses. Get a Pioneer and you'll have a weaker mortar pit. Only those 2 can garrison inside.

2/ Skysheilds remain. Fortifications with all of its upgrades remain. Barricades remain. Digouts remain, possbly not requiring GP anymore and becoming core.

3/ Gun turrnets are removed, replaced with a huge AT gun of some sort, that has a bigger building print, limtied by 2 at a time. This would be your tanky AT defense that would deal Massive damage, comparable to a sentinel (If not more) with a slightly bigger splash and slow ROF, limited by number and Size. Now what this does is lets you lock down a specific area of the map , not all of it. Tier 2, costing 2k or 2.5k.

4/ Mortar emplacement , Limited by 2 , it's basically a large emplacement with 3 mortar guns firing ( 3 mortar pits lumped into 1). Also tier 2 and fairly expensive and has a larger build print obviosuly. This is to compensate for the fact you get weaker Mortar pits.

5/ Howetzer remain unchanged.

6/ Bulldogs are still a thing.

Now what this does is it enables you to lock down only a section of the map with automated defenses that are way superior than your rest, limited by the fact you can only have 2 of each at a time ( meaning in team games, it takes skill to know where the proper positioning is). This also employs you to actually build units and use em in way that you'd want to establish a lighter forward defense line as you attack, and use them as garrisons. Locking other parts of the map takes alot more effort, since none of your defenses aside from skysheilds and howetzers are automated, you'd need to be careful in not loosing your units so that you can preserve them as part of your garrison.
This does make fighting ECA less frustrating since they can't defense spam you without building thier own units, it's unique also in the fact that they get the most varaity in garrisons, more fun to play due to heavier emphasis on unit mobility, and a higher skill cap.

Now this does require alot of stat revisions and rebalances, hence why don't take this idea too seriously

[Knjaz.]

Tbh, I think this should've went into different forum section, which you now have access to. Unless you wanted more public opinion injection on this, which is often of the quality you're already aware of.

At a first glance, my main concern would be Limits. Build Limits. Imho, the only thing that should have Build Limits are Heroic units (in a form of actual Hero or Protocols) and SuperWeapon-like abilities. (looking at Missile Silos/Topols here).

P.S.:Oh, also, one very important thing you missed in that post. Can't disclose anything, but I'd like to remind you is that Gun Turret is Willem's exclusive. And it fits there just nicely.
If ECA would have it's generic thing, there'd be far less complaints. As there would'be far less complaints if Russia used generic Gunship fleet too, probably. (which resulted in their nerfs).

In other words - ideas are nice, definitely see them working if Devs would decide to go that way, but not necessary in light of 2.0 content.

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 8 Jan 2016, 20:09

[Skitt]

ur ideas for 3 and 4 are weird...
but i could see them working, somewhat like them

[LoneRebel]

I like the idea of those new defenses, especially the triple mortar pit and super AT gun. I mean, not necessarily that I want it implemented, but just imagining it excites me.

Regarding build times: I gotta say thank God they were reduced, since I can hardly imagine playing ECA with the original build times. 15 sec Lynxes and 22 sec Leopards? The only way I can imagine even surviving with build times like that is spamming Guard Towers everywhere.

[M01]

regarding your combat pit idea

why limit yourself with just two infantry if the def structure is going to use the bike logic? I understand of the vehicles but for the inf it is questionable

why because eca inf cannot gain garrison bonus when using bike logic, only in fireports and garrisonable buildings

[Mizo]

Because other infantry would either be broken or redundant.
Panzerfaust preform better in garrisons , you have forts for that. Engineer pit is redundant since ypu can have cheaper repair fortifications, and warhounds for building repair. Medic pits are similar in that regards. Grenadier pits would be OP. Heavy Sniper pits would break GLA since they'd counter buggies too well. ( as if harriers werent enough).

[KingKickAss]

ECA is probably my favorite team. I always thought it would be cool if the Grenadier and the Heavy Sniper could use the barricades.

[Marakar]

That would lead them to being able to garrison structures, which can be brutally powerful as all eca infantry gain an extra garrison bonus. Heavy sniper fortifications would be able to deal massive damage, hence why they can't garrison (if they can use barricades then they most likely will be able to garrison other stuff most likely)

[KingKickAss]

That would lead them to being able to garrison structures, which can be brutally powerful as all eca infantry gain an extra garrison bonus. Heavy sniper fortifications would be able to deal massive damage, hence why they can't garrison (if they can use barricades then they most likely will be able to garrison other stuff most likely)

Yeah I was suggesting barricade only because the infantry can be killed off while they are garrisoned. Buildings would be ridiculous.

[Mizo]

The garrison bonus would be too good on these guys, theres probably gonna be technical diffucilities due to the fact these units need to deploy to fire.