lol..... good god squee..... its like age 28 all over again.... teaching people about attrition verses absolute defense/offense.......
memories......... like the corners of utopia temple...........
Printable View
lol..... good god squee..... its like age 28 all over again.... teaching people about attrition verses absolute defense/offense.......
memories......... like the corners of utopia temple...........
It seems weird that people are ok with sage at +50% sci when 1-2 ages ago everyone was complaining that sage would be or was too strong for having +40%. Anyway people have said enough bout it that I don't need to say any more
Human elite needs to be toned down in NW. 6 NW maybe.
Give avian TW please. +50% BR means nothing when you can be chained later in war with huge amounts of peasants (and are now landlocked and must release due to peasants that you want to kick out but cant). Can't utilize it with free draft, ToG, or turtle elite so it needs TW. Otherwise seems ok...
Give merchant riots immunity. As of right now Merch doesn't have much purpose. Make it the real econ tank it should be.
Remove +magic damage from dwarf. Increase elite NW to 5.75 or something
WH 5hr train time. Lol. Sounds fun.
Edit:Give mystic +25-50% runes to combat the amount of rogues and sages swarming the server. Easier MV is indirect mystic neg. Or 1/2 rune decay or something.
I thought everyone and their mother balked at the +50 mod and said it was ludicrous (which it is obviously). Word on the street is Bishop loves the super-sage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightmare_
1) Avian, still weak as a secondary attacker to undead and orc when compared to human or dwarf which can have a stronger hybrid specialization and economy unless merchant personality is chosen. They fared better this age with the elite credits. An additional buff to attack times would be better like 35%, making them a much more specialized race to do blitz attacks. It would be an interesting dynamic to add in wars with a small group of 3-4 avian provs around the same size. Or conversely since they are an aerial race give them a passive buff for thievery operations on intel ops since they could essentially "fly" over an enemy province to attain the info easier. Maybe like +50% success rate to intel ops or something.
2) Dwarves, keep the 6/2 elite and 100% food consumption. 30% BE is a good place for them to be at based on past ages.
3) Elf, looks fine but change elite cost to 800gc.
4) Faery, good changes. Not sure why the whining. Faeries should be straight t/m's with bad attack options as they mostly have been. They have even been -3 generals in the past. I think the theme of them being a weak attacker is fitting with their history. The added GP/MP stack helps them slightly since the defensive elite nerf in a previous age. Good addition.
5) Halfling, meh. I still agree with most that they should have the -thief cost and rogue get the +dens bonus. 4/5 elite is about right. 4/4 was fine as well.
6) Human, the science cost reduction to 30% may be a little too much with the overall higher science costs nerfed. Not sure what it will scale to since the actual costs above active are still unknown so hard to comment. 50% added cost may still be an okay place to keep it. Glad to see their elite is holding steady at 6/3 and not changing back to a 6/4.
7) Orc, my favorite attacker gets a nice small boost to gains. Since prisoners "are taken in addition to enemy killed after an attack, usually a similar number to the number of kills..." does the +25% enemy casualties mean more prisoners? I always wondered. If not, maybe it would be a neat addition to give them +25% prisoners gained and 1 prisoner per 4 troops instead of 5.
8) Undead, the usual no brainer attacker race, no pun intended. It was nice when they were finally changed back to how they originally gained elites only by attacking. The -75% offensive losses was a bit excessive this age. Maybe try -60% next age since they were at -50% before. Otherwise specify, -75% for elites only and other troops at a normal rate on attacks. I think people are over estimating how many people less will play undead since the cleric changes.
9) Merchant, should have -50% duration of income penalties from t/m ops. Not too OP but in line with a merchant personality and doesn't make them totally immune.
10) Sage, agreed +50% is too high! +40% is good otherwise, keep +50% and buff other personalities a little.
11) Rogue, switch -50% thief costs with +dens bonus.
12) Mystic, bring back fog as a unique spell for them except instead of adding a flat +3 hours make it +15% attack time.
13) Warrior, +15% OME instead of +10%. Or conversely give them access to bloodlust AND fanaticism. They are warriors after all! Needs more rawr.
14) Tactician, -15% attack time is fine. Adding a +5% gains would be nice since they are "military strategists" and would know how to utilize their forces better to out do their opponents.
15) Cleric, FINALLY IMMUNE TO PLAGUE!! Makes sense right?! I asked for this before and I'm glad it's getting implemented. Nice change! -40% losses from -50% seems like a fair trade.
16) War Hero, meh. Needs an honor protection and honor gains mechanic like -20% to honor losses from attacks and t/m ops and a +15% honor gains. The training time is nice but not really needed. I think most people would rather see the honor protection and gains over the storms/drought protection easily. Most players who know a thing or two never even look at this personality as a choice. Maybe even doing -50% honor losses and +50% honor gains if you wanna get CRAZY...
17) Mechanic Changes, looks fine. Need to add a dragon log to see who sent what and who funded how much. Tweak the potential targets finder to exclude provinces at war.
Fin.
I skimmed thread and saw few that were ok with it. hehQuote:
Originally Posted by noobium
When a kingdom wins **** with Avian/Cleric or Orc/Cleric let me know k?Quote:
Originally Posted by Squee311
Avian now has TWO chances to MP/GP bounce. TWOQuote:
Originally Posted by noobium
Double dens on rogue is a dangerous thing. Same with double towers on mystics. Those were removed for good reason.
-Honor gains and +honor gains on WH is also dangerous. IE I can stay in war for 10 days and keep swapping honor through TM and get surplus. WH princes after few wars, anyone? :) WH is strong enough as it is, use them 5hr train times, people
Part of me wonders why I'd pick Fae/Myst over Half/Myst, but then I remembered ToG FoK MF GP and CS. Ok, I guess
Edit: Acre reward capped at 20k: wut. 200k land for each KD needed to reach that. who does this affect? like 2 KDs in 1 war per age, lol... Make it 10-15k and the ballgame changes.
Avian/Tact now has a respectable 8.16hr constant attack time. :p On serious note revert tact to -20% attack time again, there were 0 issues with its strength last age
One possible way to keep sci effectiveness for sage is to do away with autobooks. +40-50% sci effectiveness, no extra buffs
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobium
wins wars? because thats what I am talking about and 3 were won in a row B2B2B this age. SO come again?
Seriously, orc cleric winning wars is old news man. The preference of cleric and tact swap back and forth all the time.
winning wars is easy. winning age is the important thing.
Warrior > all so...yeah.
5taps are kinda overrated. with sage at +50% this age the OME mod is dwarfed, with sage at +40% warrior is at least tolerably good... however, it's best races are weak compared to dorf and the t/ms, and dorf wants sage/cleric far more than warrior.
edit: will repeat, WH is sick good when it can be used right, but only a few kingdoms are going to manage this. i didn't see how WH was underpowered exactly this age, the kingdoms that could use it effectively this age are just going to be stronger. don't see any reason why WH should be changed at all, aside from shuffling plague immunity to cleric and giving some minor bonus in its place; or, some bonus that is more effective at the lower levels.
My problem with WH is that it performs VERY inconsistently. Of course kingdoms at the top can utilize it, and I don't literally believe WH is worthless. Ideally, I would like to see its Honor Effects bonus toned down and its ability to retain honor toned up. That would allow it to perform more consistently in the top, warring tier, and ghetto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squee311
In can be used in the warring tier to quite good effect also, but needs right supporting castQuote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
Just because a selection of players doesn't understand how to use something does not make it bad. The fact is it is very powerful and the fact that in the right hands and the right set up is very strong possible it is/was too strong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
So my statement towards you still holds true. Because you lack the knowledge to use something does not mean it is weak or under powered. You are on this campaign about WH but you are just focusing oh same aspect and honestly its the wrong one to be focusing on.
rofl... oh reallyQuote:
Most players who know a thing or two never even look at this personality as a choice. Maybe even doing -50% honor losses and +50% honor gains if you wanna get CRAZY...
Squee how often do you see t/ms take war hero over mystic or rogue for the +honor bonuses? Also, how many attackers on the server can manage to get past viscount status?
I agree, if the +50% sci mods stick then I'd like to see Warrior go up to 15% OME. I disagree that 5 taps is overrated, however. In any strategy game, I prefer the options that afford me the most control over my circumstances (hence my insistence of NB going to PRD instead of pure random) unless passive bonuses are very strong (Cleric/Sage). Utopia is a very rough game in that aspect because most often there is very little you can do individually to control your fate. So to that end, I prefer Warrior to any other attacking personality because it affords me the most control with the extra attacking option.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobium
Challenge accepted!Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggin5
Made Count as Orc/Sage last age ;)
#BAWS #ChainedEveryWar #MadSkillz
orc/sage is a boss next age :)
That "selection" of players just so happens to be 90% of the server or more. The "right hands" is a top 10 or higher kingdom that can bottom feed and fort scum for honor all age long. A kingdom trying to run WH outside of that bracket is simply ****ed because they will always be food for those kingdoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squee311
Alright so less than 7.5 hours left for debate. I'm ready for all things to be considered and a decision to be made. I'm ready for the next age to begin and start over. I've been debating back an forth with you guys for the past 2 days now and I'm ready to find out what the dev's have decided on. Hopefully they have heard our voices and make an educated decision base on the opinions of us all.
Sage will get +60% sci effect because we are winning about it and cleric will lose the plague bonus because we are liking it... you know the usual :).Quote:
Originally Posted by splackavellie182003
I like that the developers are trying to make it more difficult to choose race and personality by these changes, while still maintaining the uniqueness of each race. (although the +50% science effectiveness for sage is a bit too strong.)
The attack speed nerf for tacticians is an example of this. This age roughly one in every third attacker was a tactician and that will probably change for next age.
I would also like to point out something that I think is important. The playerbase is dropping each age and this game needs both hardcore and casual players. So making races and personalities more arch-typical, while balanced is for the better of this game. I also like that all races and personalities looks like viable choices now, depending on your (kingdoms) preferred playstyle.
If you're going solely by popularity...
Top 7
Undead = 31%
Tactician = 22%
Mystic = 18%
Faery = 16%
Rogue = 15%
Orc = 15%
Warrior = 12%
Bottom 7
Dwarf = 4%
Sage = 6%
Human = 6%
Cleric = 7%
Halfling = 8%
War Hero = 9%
Avian = 9%
Which makes me think that the devs at least at first look directly to these results for their basis. Since Dwarf and Sage got the biggest buffs -- which might also be why people psychologically feel that they are the strongest, when really, maybe they just got the biggest buffs is all but aren't actually the strongest.
But then I feel like Humans got left out because they didn't really get much of a buff - whereas cleric got a pretty nice one. Being the 2nd lowest race/pers...Haflling at least got the better elite...and War Hero -- I'm not really sure I consider it a buff, but they must think so...so going off of this alone, I'd say Humans need a stronger buff.
As for all races/pers looking viable...Quote:
Originally Posted by Winuz
I've said this already...but giving the personalities a bonus to science effect for their type would allow those personalities to fill their 'type' or role, and somewhat stay ahead of sages in that single aspect, but allowing sage to be the jack of all trades.
IMO
Sage keep the +50% to sci effect
Merch +50% Alchemy
Rogue +75% Crime
Mystic +67% Channeling
Warrior +20% Military
Tactician +33% Tools
Cleric +100% Food
War Hero +25% Population
Each personality would have their specific bonus -- allowing them to keep up with/be ahead of sages in that specific role. Where as sage has the overall advantage.
That said -- the personalities might have to take a nerf to their current projected bonuses slightly
ex: cleric back to -33% losses, or whatever.
Making another post but to summarize everything I see three things out of line:
(1) Sage is ridiculously good relative to other picks. It was already a decent pick at 30%, and a good pick at 40%.
(2) War Hero's training bonus needs to be brought back to 50%
(3) Comparing Human elite to Dwarf just shows how overmatched Human is for anything that's not a cow.
To these I suggest:
(1) Put Sage to +40% as it was last age. I saw nothing wrong with that, it was good enough to use but not overpowering the competition.
(1b) Mystic should buff up to +75% science too if they want to be competitive.
(2) Reset WH to -50% train time. If that bonus is going to be useful, it's useful enough at that rate.
(3) Change Human elite to 6/2, drop it's gold cost and nw to something remotely reasonable. Get rid of Human's science penalty. They're no long as good at cow, but playable for everyone else. Other reshuffling of bonuses might be useful. Dwarf at 6/3 should stay (makes the race a lot more stable), Human becomes the more economic and offensive variant of that but trades defense.
Other races are "fine" within the limit of changes that would be expected.
I'd agree with this summary.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobium
I really like this idea. Some tweaking of the exact numbers would be needed, but other than that I really think this would be a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by smercjd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squee311
That's harsh! ;(Quote:
Originally Posted by Zantetsuken
Wonder if they are asking themselves is sage not powerful enough instead of why is it unpopular. Its not an issue of it being too weak and they'd have to make it overbearingly strong to make your average player jump through the slow early game and sci-pumping hoops needed to maximize it.
Last age I've been playing avian for the first time again since ages, and one thing that annoys me is the:
"Can train Elites with Specialist Credits"
It implies you can train elites in addition to specs, but in practice it's elites only. You can either change this to correctly stating "can only use credits to train elites," or to change avians so they can actually train both specs and elites with credits.
We did. As Elf/WH my mwpa/mtpa were higher than the ones from our Faery/Mystics. M/T/A. Marquis WH OME bonus is brutal :)
I agree. This was also the case when the bonus was linked to Orcs. It seems good, but it isn't that great in practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edenbeast