I don't like this part of the Cleric change. I think it should keep its buffs but also retain the -50%
-40% Your Military Casualties (on attack or defense) (down from 50%)
Printable View
I don't like this part of the Cleric change. I think it should keep its buffs but also retain the -50%
-40% Your Military Casualties (on attack or defense) (down from 50%)
Cleric wasn't nerfed. But now Cleric has a more complete toolkit. Last age, Clerics still had to run Hospitals because of Plague, which was a colossal waste of building space. If you're going to make a personality that doesn't need Hospitals, then naturally it should be immune to Plague as well, or else you have to build buildings that are significantly less effective than they would be on a different personality. So now the Cleric toolkit is more complete and it can more effectively accomplish its role. So even though they lost 10% Combat losses, the increased efficiency through Plague Immunity still makes it an overall buff.Quote:
Originally Posted by 13nesta13
You realize in the past Sages had better science buffs than Mystics right? Stop freaking out.
I agree here, the problem was not with the tact personality. Like really? Tacts have been -20% attack time for as LONG as I can remember, and last time it was even more OP, where tacts were immune to ambush. After that tacts stayed at -20% and warriors stayed pretty much the same as they are until now. The problem with the power of tacts is not with the personality. Its with the race that they were used with. Something should be done with undeads, perhaps their % chance to plague, or chance to cure plague, because ever since the nerf previously (where undeads cannot train elites), the devs have come up with a lot of buffs that now make undeads OP as an attacker (even higher - offensive losses, loss of - sci effectiveness and whatnot). Undead tacts are just too scary in warring tier, and top tier core when used in small numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by splackavellie182003
The only thing that seems weird and hasn't already been mentioned is the NW difference between Dwarf and Human Elites. Identical units that are 6.5 and 5.25 NW seems a little too far off to me. I get the reason for the cost being so different, but the NW is just screwy.
thats some solid logic - I aprove that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
Ugh, no? If you're running cleric with hospitals for the purpose of curing plague, you're playing it terribly wrong. If I were running hospitals to further lower troop losses and have plague curing as a side bonus, then yes that at least makes more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
Honestly if I were a cleric and I had -50% losses, I wouldnt even want to run hospitals. Which is better, running 12% hospitals to cure plague (which is % based per tick as well, compared to casting NB), or say running 2-3% more guilds for much higher self spell success and getting more tries on NB in? I save a 8% space there by choosing the latter.
If you're telling me you're running only say 5% hospitals to try and cure plague then obviously your argument doesnt hold. The % chance to cure per tick is a joke at that small amount (7.6% chance of curing plague on 80% BE).
Compound that on say an orc cleric, having that 2-3% higher guilds means I get higher success keeping up Reflect magic, ANON (this is huge) and all my other selfies, and that saves more towers indirectly right? I could argue those runes saved on failed casts could even pay for the runes I would have had to try and cast NB when plagued.
Dont make references to ages where its obviously not the past 3 ages. If they werent broken back then, why were they nerfed to current numbers where Mystic bonus > sage sci bonus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
Elite NW is a way for the devs to balance Offense per Networth. Dwarves have more OPNW than Humans, but Humans get a wartime OME increase, so it's about even. In the same way, Avians have the lowest NW elite, which somewhat softens the blow of its lower offensive potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxx
The NW/elite helps scale the gains too.
Your Cleric argument stopped making sense, so I'm done with that discussion. Cleric is much stronger in the proposed changes than it would be with -50% Losses and no Plague Immunity. If you don't understand why after my explanation, then I'm at a loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by 13nesta13
As for Sage, until 3 ages ago, Sage has ALWAYS had science bonuses over Mystic/Rogue. So I'm not at all worried about them being on equal ground in the proposed changes. That is still a buff for Mystics compared to what has been the case historically.
Suggestion for sage:
Science effectiveness bonus = 50% * MIN(1, median acre size / prov acre size).
That should help solve the problem of everyone using them for cows!
Non-Cows still have to deal with getting learn attacked all the time so it's fair! ;)
Cleric is stronger with -50% losses than -40% losses and plague immunity. I understand what you are saying but nesta understands how cleric fits into a kd setup better. The only "good" thing about plague immunity on cleric is hopefully it scares people away from undead and indirectly gives warrior and merchant a massive buff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
Over the past say 15 ages sages rarely had a direct science bonus and when they did it made them stronger than a mystic/rogue at banking and VERY difficult to op. The last time sage was even remotely as strong (i think it was +25% science and 1/4 books/acre) i had my best player run feary sage and by week 8 or 9 he literally could NOT be cast on by a mystic and ran 30% WT+CS to counter rogues. I remember one war the enemy went 1/150 on casting on him, it was just stupid. Compare that to now and +50% ALL science may not directly give a wpa/tpa advantage but it buffs every other part of a prov so massively that you end up with a relatively larger tpa/wpa than we had in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
You obviously never been in a war that lasted more than 3 days then. Faery's can't hit into chained provinces for extra land without leaving them more open. Once war hits about 1.5 -2 weeks you need your t/m's to become attackers and 3/5 from 4/5 is a HUGE difference. On top of all that fae help anchor NW and since their leets took a small nerf their values did too, so they don't hold a much NW for the KD anymore leaving them more open to mid range attackers in long wars (NW gains)Quote:
Originally Posted by SlightlyOverdosed
Yay they have slightly higher def from double protection < long term attacking and NW. Fae are very strong anyways so I'm fine with the drop, it just means our KD might actually use halfers and elves a bit more for other purposes.
Who cares is cleric is perceived better or worse, it's still a great personality and a nice option to pick if the server goes UD again. Only reason why 50% sage is OP is the abuse I saw fellow KD members do with fae sages, the thief/channel part is meh, its the ME making them defensive power houses thats nasty.
i think new faery is great, and so should you. give fae 4/5 elites and new sage and you might as well call it the faery circle age.
cleric right now is good on the races that should be using it. using avian or orc cleric is dumb and has been for a while now; if you look at it from that perspective and think -40% is so bad, you should have been picking warrior or merchant anyway (last few ages stats. with these current changes not playing sage and a compatible race is hard to justify.)
Over 3 ages ago the personalities looked like:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
The Sage
+25% Science effectiveness
-20% cost of science
-50% Losses on Learn Attacks
The Rogue - no change
+1 Stealth recovery per tick
Access to all thievery operations, including 3 unique to rogues: Greater Arson, Assassinate Wizards and Propaganda
Thieves Dens are twice as effective (subject to DBE)
The Mystic - no change
Access to Meteor Showers
All Guilds and Towers are twice as effective
+30% Spell Duration (For Duration Spells Only)
+1 mana per tick in War
TPA for rogues was "boosted/compensated" compared to sage in the form of TDs bonus.
Mystic, on the other hand, had no such boost. You're right on that. They've had to resort to running higher rWPA and going super heavy BPA on magic. Why then is mystic still desirable and important, being lower magic boost by sci than sage? You guessed it, the answer is literally MS. MS is a war-winner, game-changer, UB-breaker, Pop-control, you name it, you got it. Just ask any KD war leader. Except for casting against other mystics and well pumped sage, Mystic should have relatively good success casting on rogues and other personalities.
And this goes back to the point that making MVs much easier and cheaper is a nerf to mystics. A huge one at that. Its not just some simple issue like you say it is, some minor change to meta-gameplay. Its a HUGE deal. As it stands I might consider not running mystics in my KD anymore, or just 1 mystic instead of the regular 3 foothold mystics I have in my KD all these ages. Just have 1 mystic cast on few key provinces, track NW drop, re-cast if MV'ed. Don't have to bother with MS blanket since they end up MV'ed anyway.
I'll trade my 2 Mystics for Rogues and prop and NS the hell out of my enemy, causing troop losses that would have otherwise been inflicted by MS coverage. Or for 2 sage elf hybrids and go for a FB/NM central war strat only. Previously I would have had to balance and juggle duration spells specifically MS coverage, vs instant spells specifically FB and NMs, and consider which manner of use of my mana would have been a more efficient and damaging to my opponent. Now its just a no-brainer.
I will greatly reduce mystics to 1 just for key coverage and refresh when MV'ed, and take 2 more rogues/sages which are much more useful/functional.
You're exaggerating, lets run some numbers shall we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slayerviper
sending 10 OPA as fae costs me assuming lowish 100 DPA, with higer DPA it has even less impact % wise on defense:
with 4 point elite: I'm sending 12.5 raw DPA
with 5 point elite: I'm sending 16 raw DPA
So the difference is 3.5 DPA, which with 1.4 modifier is ~5 mod DPA, so this is roughly the breaking point where I don't gain nor lose DPA by attacking with these changes.
Sending 20 OPA it's a bit over 5% difference in DPA. That's about the consistent DPA addition fae's get with GP (sure it also costs mana etc...)
If you're sending more you're probably very far ahead anyway. It has impact but it's not "HUGE". Lets not forget we're talking about specific instances in long wars, weighting against a bonus that is consistent throughout the war and even helps oow as well.
So you wrote all that to agree with my conclusion that fae remains balanced?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slayerviper
Anyway, I'm done with discussing the subject of fae.
PS: Where faeries will feel the elite change the most is when they'll be chained and forced into trading acres with attackers.
I fear this is an overreaction. Forgoing MS is never a no-brainer for all of the reasons you listed. The proposed changes make Mystics less of a no-brainer in kingdom lineups, and I'm ok with that. But they are the farthest thing from useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by 13nesta13
I was thinking for Avian, maybe instead of offering CS, offer them 20% automatic blockage of thief ops as a racial trait, and instead of GP stacking with MP, offering them +5% DME -> that way, Faery doesn't get these bonuses and is more reasonable.
imo set sage at like -20% costs and +15% effectiveness and it'll be a much harder decision to make re personality as well as warring vs pumping decisions.
Like Nesta mentioned, you'd be pigeonholing options to dwarf and human sage: early age, sci is very effective, late age, whoever has the most wins. At a change that matches merchant while not totally overpowering sage, it becomes an interesting decision as tacts/clerics/warrior and orc/avian/ud are open to discussions as well.
The most balanced age was when sage had a 25% bonus and the setups were all over the map.
I'll stick to a 1 mystic, maximum 2 setup as I promised I would have if changes stick, I'll throw in a clause that my mystics wont cast a single MS, and you can do whatever you want, go with your cleric mojo, and lets arrange war 1 week into the new age? (edit: IF MV turns out to be as easy and cheap as what I perceive it to be upon new age. Can confirm within 2 hours of new age start and figuring the cost reduction.) Since islands take time to open and etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
And let's see which setup pwns? I'll be happy to bet credits with you.
People actually whining about faery elite. rofl noobs.
I think you should reevaluate how you look at the game. One of the most feared set ups in the top used WHs this age. I mean you can keep repeating this opinion but you just look uneducated...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
Well, to be fair nesta, there is an obvious way that making MV a little easier and cheaper will not result as a nerf to mystics. Make MV mystic only.............
Thank you for bringing this up. Why would people be whining about anything else when everything else is getting buffed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Avenger
Go ahead and cut faery's elite offense. Give them back their +75% magic effectiveness. That's not noob right? Or is it just plain stupid to ask for something else other than the very least (elite off)?
I reemphasize my point. With all the buffs shooting left and right, Keeping faery as it is is a form of nerf. No reason to nerf them twice.
I assume you are speaking from the side of lets war for 48 hours and see who wins. To say cleric should not be used on Orc/avain is just ridiculous. If war hits attrition which most do especially with more of the war tier learning that UD can outlast most races in troop totals going cleric and gaining footing in the attrition game is amazing for wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobium
Faeries got gp+mp stack so its not just a nerf...
That would be interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheister
Could avians have -33 % attacks times so they can make 3x uniques a day and reduce some of the other buffs like BR or the sabatoge bonus.
Just thought of it ... but what about
Avian - 6/4 elite
Human - 6/3
Dwarf - 6/2
(changing the NW values appropriately of course and maybe adjusting cost) Though then avian might be too much with elite credits :S
This might make those 3 less than orc attacker races much more balanced...
Or even 6/3, 6/2, 6/1 respectively
Or make dwarf 0/5 :D
Avian Merch would be an unstoppable machine of death and chaos lolQuote:
Originally Posted by smercjd
whats the deal with the free soldier draft on ork. are the different rates of draft still available?
Yes, an orc should never use any thing but extreme or nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cookie311
Smerc that would make a server of 80% Avian
if you pick cleric on an attacker like orc, you're picking it more for outside of war than in war.
disagree you can build a kd designed to war 8-10 days before you really "win" and cleric falls into that category.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobium
thank you for making my point. Noobium seems to think wars only last 48 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Persain
Only if you come to my kingdom. We'd need to draft Palem back as well, to do it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobium
Agree with the point - and I've been playing it this age. Plan to next age again due to the 3 other buffs they got (GP, 12 hour build, NW reduction). I use almost all o-spec anyway so it isn't going to hurt too bad... but at larger sizes you have to use some elites (for turtle ability) so it *is* overall a nerf to attacking faery.
Bishop can you explain what you mean by:
Selecting land as a bonus will also result in a smaller honor bonus and vice versa.
If those attackers are dwarf then yes. Orc? 8-10 days in those sustained troops aren't hitting **** by themselves, while a different pick would have done more to protect that support. Orc/Cleric makes sense only if you have too few attackers to form a proper attack core, but want enough offense to keep enemy t/m honest defensively. It's not the Cleric part that wins the war, it's the t/m part and the attackers want an easy pick that is harder to disrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Persain
Noobium attrition happens and Running cleric is better then spending land into hosps. The TMs can win the wars but the hitters need to have healthy off to finish it or you just stalemate. You still seemed geared to shorts wars and cutting losses and min time WDing. While not everyone thinks that way and it is not always the best stat.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobium
You can debate it all you want but to make a claim that you are doing it wrong if you run orc/cleric you are the one who is flat out wrong.