Age 64 potential changes

[Persain]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Slayerviper]

I don't understand why people are dismayed with Faery changes. I find it hard to call it a nerf.
They were buffed last age by gaining CS while most races were toned down.
Farther they receive cheaper elite and GP +5% def on top.
Considering that arguing that 3/5 elite is not well balanced is odd.

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)

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.

[Slayerviper]

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.

[noobium]

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.)

[13nesta13]

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.

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.

Over 3 ages ago the personalities looked like:

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.

[SlightlyOverdosed]

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)

You're exaggerating, lets run some numbers shall we?
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.

Fae are very strong anyways so I'm fine with the drop

So you wrote all that to agree with my conclusion that fae remains balanced?
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.

[Zantetsuken]

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.

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.

[Gidoza]

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.

[Meeni]

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.

[13nesta13]

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.

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.

And let's see which setup pwns? I'll be happy to bet credits with you.

[Avenger]

People actually whining about faery elite. rofl noobs.

[Squee311]

So War Heroes no longer need to cast Nature's Blessing. I guess they are finally playable (he said sarcastically).

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...

[Sheister]

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.............

[Meda]

People actually whining about faery elite. rofl noobs.

Thank you for bringing this up. Why would people be whining about anything else when everything else is getting buffed.

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.

[Squee311]

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.)

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.