none of the changes can be meaningfully commented upon before we know the exact new gains formula. Could you provide that?
Printable View
none of the changes can be meaningfully commented upon before we know the exact new gains formula. Could you provide that?
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
Someone previously asked if this would work both ways, simply yes. The example was just an example to illustrate an easily understandable situation.
The Attack Gains formula will include a land factor such that attacks that may have previously yielded little to no gains will now yield gains, example: a 1000 acre province with 75,000 NW being attacked by a 1000 acre province with 250,000 NW would normally yield a 0 acre gain. This attack would now produce an acre gain.
^ How is this a problem in the eyes of the new devs. Out of all the crap you came up with, you wanted to make bottom feeding easier.
So in a game that heavily favors undeads, you decided to instead nerf the crap out of faeries and make it so they can no longer be a viable attacker.
I'm sure they are doing their best cut them some slack and I wouldn't be so quick to judge (it works both ways and is land based not really bottom feeding imo).
If you are a 1000 acre attacker at 75000 NW, you grew too much and deserve to lose a little. It's probably not a lot either. Why protect poor decision making?Quote:
Originally Posted by calamity
Increasing wage costs for elites across the board would force people into using a mix of specs and elites, making it difficult to run full elite on some races. This may help balance the increased and inflated offense values on some races while promoting a greater use of specialists on other races. This also increases the value of armories outside of pumping and allows for a greater build diversity. I would also suggest adding some sort of wage value to soldiers.
Rolling back the changes to wizard production will slow pumping wizards to a crawl for some races - don't think it should be removed entirely, but say 1/2 of wizard science increases rate of wizard production.
I feel like there should be more of a balance between army and peasants; something having to do with building efficiency which could also help negate the inflated offense values by preventing or making it incredibly difficult to run full elite.
Or you could grow a pair and attack your size in the first place you bottom feeder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Verminator
The Attack Gains formula may also receive tweaks to adjust the scaling of how relative net worth affects gains in such a way that further discourages bottom-feeding and promotes protecting your own land.
i would like to point out that if i where i faery, even with the bonus of forts i would only have a max of 13 def points per elite, while a undead with 15 raw off, will be on 17 off points with increased wages, and just warhorses, if other modifiers would be added it could go as high as 23 per elite, this will mean that there is no way for a pure tm to defend its own acres.
my suggestion is, to have a some setup where tms can choose to go with full defence elites, instead of having off points on a elite, this way they could compete with the heavy hitting armies, and will require another way to be taken down, making the game much more interesting, as it stands now, every tm will be completely and utterly destroyed, unless they go into some hybrid build, wich will be completely worthless with such strong heavy hitting attackers.
i hope that this issue can be adressed, maybe not this age, but the next.
Goodluck,
KoNGawain
Faeries will have plenty higher EPA than any attacker too. I don't like what you propose. While I do think it's absolutely ridiculous that an Orc/UD 30% smaller can break TMs, and that it should be toned down, I think it's even more ridiculous to have TMs have 0/14 elites being UB to any attack at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by KoNGawain
It should definately cost a KD more to bring a TM down than it does now, that way it'll be a more difficult decision. TMs shouldn't be guaranteed UB though. It should be something you work towards with ops etc. And if the opponent choose to invest their resources in bringing one down you might be able to get as much out of it in other ways.
This means this works both ways and that smaller prov actually has something to take from bigger prov who usually values its acres more, discouraging bigger prov in a sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by calamity
so hitting someone with 1.5x ur acrss but same nw will still yield 12%?Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC
in addition hitting someone same acrss but 1/3 will still yield some?
is the acre factor additive after the relative nw one? before? are gains capped with the acre factor only kicking in when nw differential is too big?
stuff like this matters. +30% income on humans would be uselss if youd decide to remove money from the game. If you reduce general spell costs by 90%, Elf tower bonus would ve less significant. mechanics matter and should ve taken into consideration when commenting on race pers changes.
Strategy should never involve bravery. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by calamity
i dont think UD got overly buffed, who knows what the proc rate is of elites on a send. more than likely you wont see full elite armies, maybe half and half. so that brings them to a roundabout 12 elite value. and Fae got their Def upped to 10.
I think UD would be better at 14 to keep things more in line.
I think its odd that Sage doesn't have Revelation to increase sci spawn rate, but every TM persona does.
Has anyone thought about keep all specs at 6/0 and 0/6 and put the +1/+2 etc onto the personalities, might make for some new combinations. IE Rogue/Mystic have +2 dspec value, heretic has +1/+1, War Hero and Warrior can have +2 ospec value.
I also think that if you are going to have Racial Spells, they should not overlap on Personas, seems silly that if you pick a combo that is Avian/Cleric you get Double Greater Protection. Why not pull Greater Protection from Avian and make it a Cleric only type thing. Or maybe instead of giving Cleric Greater Prot, make Cleric Immune to the effects of Pitfalls (Since they are a cleric and give a buff to - losses)
More than likely? You should *never* see full elite armies, with the exception of chained provinces that release everything but their priceless elites. Orc will still achieve greater offensive output than Undead, but Undead will still achieve greater sustainability than Orc. Nothing has really changed there, the buzz is a bit excessive.
So I have a couple questions:
1. You say this: The Attack Gains formula will include a land factor such that attacks that may have previously yielded little to no gains will now yield gains, example: a 1000 acre province with 75,000 NW being attacked by a 1000 acre province with 250,000 NW would normally yield a 0 acre gain. This attack would now produce an acre gain.
The Attack Gains formula may also receive tweaks to adjust the scaling of how relative net worth affects gains in such a way that further discourages bottom-feeding and promotes protecting your own land.
So you say that you're removing the NW penalty that is made to prevent NW manipulation in order to make better gains.... and then the next statement you say that you want to add something to the formula that takes NW into consideration in gains.... Now, correct me if I'm wrong.. but NW manipulation is not only extremely simple, but it the #1 way bottom feeding happens. A massive province with a massive army razes all but farms and banks, massively lowering his NW into the range of much smaller provinces. Then they make an attack, KNOWING the defender cannot retal because their defensive army is HUGE compared to the target's offense. Wouldnt it just be simpler to make gains land-based? Out of war, the target is considered "out of range" if they are +/-30% of your land? Outside of that range gets a massive penalty to gains. That would almost completely remove all top and bottom feeding, wouldnt it?
2. You lowered the birth rate on TM races by 10%.... but LP increases birthrate by like 25%.... so this penalty is useless. I mean, what is the point in a 10% birthrate penalty anyway?
3. UD are the most OP change I've ever seen in the game. They get a 9 point off spec, which is more powerful than the dwarf, halfer, and elf leets (by far), and also makes them ambush-proof (especially for the first 3 or 4 years of the game). They dont have to worry about leet costs because they just get automatically converted, and when they are converted, they are the most powerful unit in the game. On top of that, those uber units die 75% less than any other unit in the game, and even when they do, 50% of them are automatically reawakened into soldiers. Their only nerf is -35% science? Honestly... just... wow. What is the point in being anything but undead?
4. How are NM going to effect UD/Elites? Since they arent actually trained.... would it revert them back to specs? If so, NM is going to be the top spell cast this next age.
5. So you gave faeries more defensive capabilities in their leets (+1)... and then took away 5% of their defensive strength. So you gave them +10% more defense on elites, and then nerf'd them by taking 5% away, so in all reality, they only get 5% more defense. Aside from swapping the offense to halfers, that is all the changes made to faeries. TM elites are either at or lower defensively than ALL other elites offense in the game. Why do attackers consistently get amazing buffs (i.e. Undeads next age) but TM's get screwed every age? Even with new ownership. We thought this would end with Lord Voldebishop's reign :P
6. So basically next age it will be UD attackers, Elf Hybrids, and Faery TM's.