Age 71 Proposed Changes Suggestions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andurilas

1. Why not leave Bloodlust on Warrior? Warrior is kind of piddling with these changes, and Bloodlust is enhanced. I understand it would be redundant for Avians and Orcs, but it might make Warrior more appealing to, say, Dwarf, Human, or even Elf.

2. Rogue losing the Dens bonus really nerfs it. The extra science bonus is nice, and CS will obviously be less prevalent, but Rogue is still lagging. Even a small boost to sabotage damage or the like would be welcome. Or take Revelation off of Heretic?

3. Faery is weird. It is schizophrenic. It's tooled for a defensive damage inflicting TM tanky type, but its penalties directly undercut that. It would be like giving Orc a penalty to OME %.

4. Defense values. Reiterate that Elf defense should not be so far below Faery (and on par with Halfling and Dwarf!). Consider making Elf +3 def spec (putting it still below Faery), and possibly even adding a point to Human and/or Avian elite.

5. Double rune cost on Human is kind of bananas. Maybe we can start with +50%?

---

1. Uhhh.. anytime you have a personality with 5 gens it is never a piddling personality. Also I'm pretty sure they kept bloodlust off a personality because they dont want undead having access to it. Bloodlust only drawback is major attacking losses... wanna keep that off the -75% losses race.

2. Rogue is majorly better this age. All major magic race/pers combos have no access to clear sight. That is huge. Rogues will sacrifice a little extra losses for the opportunity of 25% higher success rate on Prop/AW (after GA).

3. Yea Fae is in an awkward place right now. It will always see play though, and has its uses.

4. I would be interested in elf being +3 dspec and halfer being 6/9 or 5/9. Fae leets are so expensive/nw inefficient/ and less of them though.

5. Human/mystic and human/heretic confirmed un-viable, but other than that, not a huge issue. Don't forget all the changes to +runes this age, there will be tons flying around. Not like this last age.

+1 ospec strength on Avian seems moot, as credits can train leets. It can stay but im not quite sure the advantage to that, maybe it should be dspec instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmiedema

Just wondering Jeff/David in terms of Change notes, "+20% Resource Losses when attacked" refers to what as a resource? Everything that Guard Stations do? So land/honour/massacres/razes all hit 20% harder? I assume scientists not included in that as a resource.

---

everything is a resource...its effectively +20% battle gains for the enemy, just like orc has +25% gains when attacking.

So u lose 20% more when plundered, 20% more land, 20% more science lost on abduct..... This changes orcs into a i'd rather hit a t/m than giving them a massive chaining advantage over the other races.

Orc advantages and disadvantages basically cancel each other out making orc only have free draft going for them.
Why can't mystic start with 2wpa instead of a 1wpa. Also mystic should have +1 mana per tick. It's way easier to play rogue due to trainable thieves and you end up going halfling rogue you get +2 stealth per tick.

So why is it mystic is gimped compared to rogue? Our guilds only produce wizards where rogues tds decrease losses and give them tpa. A halfling rogue against an elf mystic the rogue wins. More tpa due to trainable thieves, more stealth per tick due to racial and personality bonus, also they have more success against the heavy attackers due to none have a wpa disadvantage. Not only all of this but the rune issues as well. (Rune issue might be fixed as elf).

So how about evening the play field in the t/m bracket as well please. Or at least +1 mana given to mystics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmiedema

1. Uhhh.. anytime you have a personality with 5 gens it is never a piddling personality. Also I'm pretty sure they kept bloodlust off a personality because they dont want undead having access to it. Bloodlust only drawback is major attacking losses... wanna keep that off the -75% losses race.

2. Rogue is majorly better this age. All major magic race/pers combos have no access to clear sight. That is huge. Rogues will sacrifice a little extra losses for the opportunity of 25% higher success rate on Prop/AW (after GA).

3. Yea Fae is in an awkward place right now. It will always see play though, and has its uses.

4. I would be interested in elf being +3 dspec and halfer being 6/9 or 5/9. Fae leets are so expensive/nw inefficient/ and less of them though.

5. Human/mystic and human/heretic confirmed un-viable, but other than that, not a huge issue. Don't forget all the changes to +runes this age, there will be tons flying around. Not like this last age.

---

fae has CS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodwitch

fae has CS

---

Naw dawg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodwitch

fae has CS

---

No race has Clear Sight, so how does Faery get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmiedema

1. Uhhh.. anytime you have a personality with 5 gens it is never a piddling personality. Also I'm pretty sure they kept bloodlust off a personality because they dont want undead having access to it. Bloodlust only drawback is major attacking losses... wanna keep that off the -75% losses race.

---

Good point. Still think Warrior needs something shiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmiedema

Rogues will sacrifice a little extra losses for the opportunity of 25% higher success rate on Prop/AW (after GA).

---

33% higher. mr splitting nails ;)

No cs no revelations, income nerfed, no offense... Poor Fae

My thoughts.

undead- Has to attack to get elites, so you either war or whore. regardless their offense will stabilize mid-late age in regards to orc. Off specs are easy to night strike as well so they will be easier to control in war, now you can only super deep chain or camp their armies as they come home to hit them. Permanent AD can be good and bad, way more prone to overpop if you aren't online.

orc- glass cannon as they should be. seems a bit harsh atm but it will still be played.

halfling/faery/dwarf/elf- all look good. halfling became a bit stronger next age due to no cs on race.

human- seems a bit lame but oh well.

avian- they are a good bit stronger than normal, really like the look of them atm.

pers- they all stay about the same. wh bonus still isnt as good as other combos for warring so its ok.


will likely edit shortly or repost when i have more time to add to it. work time

Dwarf is nerfed. Almost unusable as attacker. Really only good as a NW whore. Adding a defensive version of pitfalls, (fog, previously suggested) would make it usable as a bank or NW whore. Otherwise, we won't be using Dwarf at all in KoE.

#NotMyFaeries

I think people are overreacting about offense vs defense and really underreacting to the other ways faery has been gutted

Avian is still not pick-able tbh. It has considerably lower offense. I'm not even sure it should have more. Maybe the others should be brought down.

Dwarf elite def is too high, 9/7 should be enough.

Lower elf wages penalty to +25% and lower the rune production.

Faery got wrecked even harder with the preliminary changes, lmao
I'd understand if the income penalty replaced the population penalty. But not this massacre.

Human 11/4 elite and +50% rune cost should be enough. Then again, I'm against off inflation.

Orc looks ok. Maybe the resource loss penalty or losses could be toned down a bit.

Undead is untouched, still advocating for ospec/elite nerfs.

War Hero is too good. Lose the gains imo.

Sage needs that 50% protection.

I don't even...

GJ or making avian's poopy, crappy speed and will have no offence after 2 waves.

Undead... yah I'm not even going to comment they will be almost as strong as an orc with **** leet % and just start busting t/m's by mid war (if they couldn't at the start) and never lose offence lol k. I expect a UD server as per usual, bring out the clerics and don't bother running t/ms

This is the first age in awhile the t/m's seemed balanced... too bad orcs and UD's will just double tap them.

Sage is weak, science has little meaning now so why the nerf. Rouges needed a nerf so GJ on that. I like that WH is getting some love. I like most of the mechanic changes, but don't understand the land gains aspect... it just seems it will increase bottom feeding.

I like you guys are trying to change poop up, but maybe add some balance? Or will this be a flavour of a race per age thing your going for?

I seriously can't fathom how to suggest adjusting some of these changes. I see little reason to have t/m's and people are saying Ud can be controlled through ops? What happens when you have a core of them and 2-3 t/m's are dead after one wave... k.

Not that it matters, but I've really been struggling to want to play this game for awhile now. This will probably be the nail in the coffin. I guess they want new players to be effective in the game so even if they have no clue on how to play or manage a prov they can smash anything that moves.

Slayerviper - I hope you stick around to see the Final Changes. Based on some of your comments I feel you may have not seen the revised changes, so I encourage you to look at the 2nd post to see some revisions that have been made to the original proposed changes.

Couple things to point out:
I certainly disagree that we will see an UD server. UD will be much tougher to play as well as is popularly believed on the forums at the present time.
The gains formula tweak (if implemented this age) will certainly not promote bottom feeding, in fact our aim with the formula will be just the contrary (although I don't expect anyone to understand how the formula will work based on a simple example given to illustrate a specific aspect of a very complex formula).
Persain has presented some good numbers that actually show relative nw provinces of the same size will not be able to hit a t/m more than once, so I don't quite understand the theory that every attacker will quad a t/m.
The simple statement that 'sage is weak' is not very compelling, and I would simply argue that you are mistaken and be content that our discussion is over based on the depth of content in our arguments :)