Age 54 Potential Changes Rev II

[Palem]

Faeries shouldnt be hit for land in war - it does not hurt them.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
*wipes tear away*
oh gawd, you kill me pillz. Doesn't hurt them...lol


Get farmed out
10's of millions of gc's worth of damage
Unable to train up fast enough to actually recover back to original size/protection
Left as a pure acre farm


Yep, doesn't hurt them one bit lol

[Natsu]

OK finally got chance to think through the 2nd round of changes so hear we go! to discuss the numbers on the races i am going to split them into their designed rolls, then discuss weather or not they have the power to be useful/successful within that roll and then finally give my suggestions as to how to tweak the underpowered/overpowered races.

GROUPING & ANALYSIS

Pure attackers- Orcs & Undeads, Both races suit this roll very well boasting 9 point offense elites and unique ability's to help sustain that offense throughout a war. As well as individualized bounces to their attacks and negatives to T/M aspirations. Overall both races seem very capable and fairly balanced at fulfilling the same roll without having the same "feel". A+ hear i wouldn't change them at all.

T/M- Faerys & Humans(maybe? I'm still not 100% on what your trying to do with humans), Faerys are perfect for this roll and definitely have the power to get it done. I thought the faerys where a bit overpowered last age but with the reduction in TPA & WPA bonuses in addition to giving other races T/M bonuses i think it balances them out nice. A+ to faerys i wouldn't change em, I will talk about humans last as i think they are all wonky.

Power hybrids (a/M & a/T)- Elfs seem well suited as A/M's with a slight lean more towards the M then the A in A/M as well as being able to play a pure mage capable of even casting on faerys at the cost of of attack power and thievery ability/defense. All the same could be said about Halfers just in terms of Thief power instead of magic. However i feel that both races are a bit underpowered with Elfs being the stronger of the two. I ran a halfer/merchant A/T this age and thought it was decent at best. for the most part I didn't have any problems thieving anyone besides faerys and was even able to cast on some attackers to boot but i was also ALWAYS feeling a tad short on attack power even after blunting my expectations due to being a hybrid, loosing the pop bonus (even with TPA bonus) kills them. if a kingdom full of hybrids cant produce comparable numbers in attack & T/M power to a kingdom split between Faerys and pure attackers then hybrids loose a lot of their appeal. This isn't to say Elfs and Halfers need to be as strong of attackers as orcs while being able to op faerys but they need to land some where in the middle and right now i think the faery/attacker combo has the hybrid combo beat hands down. I would give Elfs a B+ to A- while giving the halfers a solid B.

Damage Hybrids (A/m & A/t)- Avains, Dwarfs and Humans (again not so sure on humans), Avains and Dwarfs both seem to fit well in their rolls as A/T and A/M respectively while leaning a bit more towards attack power than T/M power, this is a nice complement to the other hybrid rolls that seem to emphasize their T/M power a bit more. Like the other hybrids i feel like Avains and dwarfs are underpowered when compared to the combination of Faerys and attackers in a kingdom. neither race boasts the pop space or space efficiency to run a high enough WPA/TPA to take advantage of their + to damages and still maintain a decent attack strength as well. It also concerns me that both races have very little ability to turtle with low D elites making them much more vulnerable to pre war massacres during button games as well as ambushes to kill an already subpar offense. I also don't like the + to thievery damage as it functions now sense it will not exceed the max damage limit for a particular op so basically it just works out to sending less thieves to do the same damage which isn't nearly as attractive as doing 40% more damage for sending the same amount of thieves. Over all i would give them both about a B and again will talk about humans last.

Humans- To me it seems like you where looking for a race that could slide between a T/M and a hybrid with a fair amount of flexibility in how it was played depending on the players preferences. As humans stand right now however i just don't see them being usable in any roll. They have the added pop space which coupled with the +50% T/M damage you would think could make them a strong T/M candidate however their elite is no where near space efficient enough to allow humans to stack on the TPA and WPA needed to take advantage of those damage bonuses while keeping enough D to be relatively UB like faerys, the leet also bloats the humans NW making it a sub-par attacker or turtle as well. From the changes the way i interpret the vision for this roll is as a T/M capable of entering wars as fairly UB within its NW range, able to op attackers and hybrids (struggling to cast on elves and thieve halfers), un able to op faerys but able to slide into the roll of support attacker far better than faerys as war goes on and enemy MO diminishes.

CHANGES (to current proposals)

Undead, Orc and Faery Unchanged. i have heard people suggest dropping orc and undeads elites by one offensive point each which i think would go along way to balancing pure attackers and hybrids but then you would have to drop faerys elite by 1 D as well (otherwise they would be too strong in my opinion) which i think would cause another round of adjustments to be needed across the boards. So i would rather strengthen the other races than weaken this.

Elf- They don't need much. I Think that a 7/4, 6.5 NW-6.75NW Elite OR a +1 horse would give them the little extra kick they need to be very competitive. I prefer the 7/4 elite over the +1 horse.

Halfling- they need their pop bonus back! that and possibly still a little help with their offense. my suggestion? +10% pop and either a 6/6 elite or a +1 O spec and drop the 2/2 soldiers in either case (its a cool idea just not all too functional). I like the +1 O spec more. QF would also be nice to see back in their spell book as well

Avain- First change game mechanics so +40% thievery damage truly function that way instead of functioning as -40% thiefs needed to be sent. Next boost their attack power either an 8/3 elite OR if you think thats too much a 7/3 elite and remove the "no accesses to stables" penalty. I like the 8/3 elite as it allows avains to run a lower amount of elites and more D specs/thieves helping them turtle a bit and maintain a usable TPA.

Dwarf- I think bumping their BE bonus from +10% to +20% would help them all around but i'm not sure it would be enough, the other option i see is to drop the BE bonus and give them something like a 7/6 elite with a high enough NW to discourage a full elite army (maybe 7.5 NW?) i like the strong elite more than an increase in BE.

Humans- They need to most work to me, even more so sense i want their pop bonus moved back to halfers. i think that giving them the dwarf +10% BE (or even up to 20% BE) and a 5/7, 7 NWPA elite would suit them well. the BE bonus helps them shore up T/M abilities and the elite would allow them to slide from complete turtle to turtle attacker as a war drags on far better than now.

After taking a further look all races except Human an Avian are good. The only adjustment I would make is this:

Avian - 7/3 elite and will be fine. Will be on par with Dwarf.
Dwarf - Maybe a 5% to 10% BE boost. Elites are fine as is.
Faery - Make it -5% population penalty and drop elite value to 1/8 with a possible 900gc cost and 7.25 cost to compensate. To make sure they can't attack but not cripple the Faery.
Halfling - Race is fine as is.
Humans - Switch elite to 3/6 or 2/7 and make a 6/0 off spec. To me this will give them a bit more space allocation to be a competitive T/M while not being truly like a Faery.
Orc - Race is fine as is.
Undead - Race is fine as is.

[Pillz]

A typical kingdom would have their "big" Faeries around 25-50% of the average province size. There are going to be 2-4 of them per kingdom. The amount of effort it requires to chain down 4 non attackers is not worth the trade off of being wrecked by the other 21-23 provinces in the enemy kingdom.

It is, simply put, not a viable winning strategy to chain T/Ms. It may hurt them in the long run, but in war it does just 2 things:
1- Increases their WPA/TPA (Chained A/Ms can LL ~50 of their size back anyways)
2- Leaves the real threat (attackers) unharmed.

T/Ms don't win real wars Palem, sorry.

[nooblet]

A typical kingdom would have their "big" Faeries around 25-50% of the average province size. There are going to be 2-4 of them per kingdom. The amount of effort it requires to chain down 4 non attackers is not worth the trade off of being wrecked by the other 21-23 provinces in the enemy kingdom.

It is, simply put, not a viable winning strategy to chain T/Ms. It may hurt them in the long run, but in war it does just 2 things:
1- Increases their WPA/TPA (Chained A/Ms can LL ~50 of their size back anyways)
2- Leaves the real threat (attackers) unharmed.

T/Ms don't win real wars Palem, sorry.

Without going into a huge verbal beatdown and derailing the thread, I will just say you're horribly wrong on both counts, and shouldn't be acting as though your knowledge of the game is superior after saying something so ridiculous like "losing land helps t/ms".

[Pillz]

I've yet to see a kingdom win a war because of the awesomeness of 3 faeries.

[Azartyn]

A typical kingdom would have their "big" Faeries around 25-50% of the average province size. There are going to be 2-4 of them per kingdom. The amount of effort it requires to chain down 4 non attackers is not worth the trade off of being wrecked by the other 21-23 provinces in the enemy kingdom.

It is, simply put, not a viable winning strategy to chain T/Ms. It may hurt them in the long run, but in war it does just 2 things:
1- Increases their WPA/TPA (Chained A/Ms can LL ~50 of their size back anyways)
2- Leaves the real threat (attackers) unharmed.

T/Ms don't win real wars Palem, sorry.

Real quick Pillz...did you ever hear of over pop? When you take enough land from fays (chain to 500 acres from 1500) they are forced to release wizzies rendering them almost useless. OR massacre them and just take their acres at EoW.

[Wrekx]

I've been waiting to put my fingers on what I thought was imbalanced.



Orcs- In the suggestion they lost 5% gains, and their elite cost and NW went up. That doesn't really justify RM. Not to mention they got their BE back, and that RM is a defensive spell and Orcs shouldn't be defensive.

---My change: Reduce BE, or toss RM and give them reduced wages.


Warrior- The problem here is that the extra general and bonus to offense have too much synergy.

---My change: Give the general & enhanced conquest to Tactician (where for flavor reasons they belong). Give reduced attack time to Warrior. Then give Tactician some other flavorful buff, such as +25% ambush damage or ambush defense.

And rebalance modifiers from there.

[Pillz]

1- Land Lust. Like I said, I have personally LL'd almost 50% of the land I lost as an A/M when chained. T/Ms can do the same thing.
2- IMO Wizards are a more effective unit then thieves when you're small, because of Land Lust. You would release thieves before wizards.
3- You can do without defense, since in this scenario you've just been chained to ****. You would release a fair amount of that before the thieves.

And again, why chain T/Ms?

[DHaran]

Sanc beat Simians because of their Faeries :P

[Natsu]

I've been waiting to put my fingers on what I thought was imbalanced.
Orcs- In the suggestion they lost 5% gains, and their elite cost and NW went up. That doesn't really justify RM. Not to mention they got their BE back, and that RM is a defensive spell and Orcs shouldn't be defensive.

---My change: Reduce BE, or toss RM and give them reduced wages.[/QUOTE]

Reflect Magic is more of a curse for an Orc because you'd have to dedicate 20% of your land to Guilds (15%) and Towers (5%) instead of the 8% Guilds and 5% Towers now. The reason is that RM is one of the harder skills to cast so Orcs having the skill is kind of useless IMO. Rather have the reduced wages than RM any day so that extra 7% land can go other places. Reduced BE is a terrible penalty to attach to an Orc.

Would also reduce the -25% science effectiveness to -15% science effectiveness for Undead now that I think about it.

Warrior- The problem here is that the extra general and bonus to offense have too much synergy.
---My change: Give the general & enhanced conquest to Tactician (where for flavor reasons they belong). Give reduced attack time to Warrior. Then give Tactician some other flavorful buff, such as +25% ambush damage or ambush defense.
And rebalance modifiers from there.

If you want to fix them maybe do this:

The Warrior
-50% draft cost
+15% OME in war
Accurate Espionage (in war)


The Tactician
Gain 50% more Specialist and Building Credits
Enhanced Conquest range
-15% Attack Time


The Cleric
- 60% Your Military Casualties (on attack or defense)
Immune to The Plague <--- Clerics afterall


The War Hero
+25% honor protection
+1 General
-50% train time

The Sage
+ 25% Science effectiveness
-66% Losses on Learn Attacks
Immune to Dragons <---- To me the Plague Immunity fits better with Cleric.

[Pillz]

Beating Simians is not really a challenge.
We out uniqued them 2:1.

[UtopiaKarateKid]

I am sorry you would be dissapointed Pillz, all the changes are showing it will be the rise of the t/ms in the next age.

About the disscussion of the Faeries it is been very clearly shown. In the past there is almost no hope to see a Faery broken by a mage before, but now it is possible. This is a simple idea

- MS spell seems to be the best spell to weaken a Faery since their defence is mostly made out of elites
- However, the only race that is possible to make this happen - the Elfs, is less likely be able to keep honours for themselves
- So when Faeries are not well pump up in science and honour enough, they will be owned by either Elfs or Haflers
- When they are well pumped up, they can only be owned through attackers hits
- Which means in the early of the age, Elfs or Haflers will be able to own Faeries when they are not pumped up yet
- While Faeries will be able to own Elfs or Haflers in the middle or the late age

While:
- The nerf of Sage makes pumping harder and slower
- The lost of Merchant double effects on Banks and the lost of 30% income from Human will make the overall gc produced in game, lesser
- Players need a lot of gc but, the game does not produce enough gc for them to use?
- So, what may happen is more may rely on stealing inactives or semi inactive provs for gc
- And this is where the % on thievery damage will come in place and help a lot
- Advisable is to always keep some WTs or maintain a higher Tpa Out of War or in War since a lot of "thieves" out there will be eyeing your precious gc in the next age



Let's have the final decision done, there are a lot of discussions taking place here and mostly targetted on the Avians, Humans, Orcs and Faeries. Personally I am still hoping the development team can consider 2 critical factors in the last changes.

One is about my suggestion on the Elfs NM and the second is about Darkseels suggestion on the credits rewards of winning wars for the Orcs.

Among hundreds of posts here many ppl are keeping quiet about it, which is kind of clever but these are all selfish intentions, its not for the good to all. Imo an absolute imbalance of a race will spoil the gameplay while these imbalances are so clear to be noticed and hardly to be miss out at all.

Ppl can keep on having heavy debates about other races but they won't miss out such an imba advantage in the next age and it is more than certain they will fully make use of it.

Wars are meaningful and enjoyable, only when it is playable. A one side massacre war which there is almost no way to counter its offensive attacks, is meaningless and it gives no fun for the warring players. That's the only reason I suggest the removal of the NM of the Elfs, not because it is a selfish intention as my preferable race or the race I hated, but because I see there is almost near to no way to counter it. Hopefully the development team can consider about it, thanks.

[nooblet]

Cosmetic change, but can Tactician be renamed General?

[Wrekx]

-Reflect Magic is more of a curse for an Orc because you'd have to dedicate 20% of your land to Guilds (15%) and Towers (5%) instead of the 8% Guilds and 5% Towers now.

A spell that you have a choice to use or not is not a curse. A good player will use RM even if he doesn't use it all the time.

[Natsu]

I am sorry you would be dissapointed Pillz, all the changes are showing it will be the rise of the t/ms in the next age.

About the disscussion of the Faeries it is been very clearly shown. In the past there is almost no hope to see a Faery broken by a mage before, but now it is possible. This is a simple idea

- MS spell seems to be the best spell to weaken a Faery since their defence is mostly made out of elites
- However, the only race that is possible to make this happen - the Elfs, is less likely be able to keep honours for themselves
- So when Faeries are not well pump up in science and honour enough, they will be owned by either Elfs or Haflers
- When they are well pumped up, they can only be owned through attackers hits
- Which means in the early of the age, Elfs or Haflers will be able to own Faeries when they are not pumped up yet
- While Faeries will be able to own Elfs or Haflers in the middle or the late age

As far as Halflings and Elves go they will own the Faeries throughout the age if played right because a 20% TPA/WPA difference is huge even if it's only on one aspect. 14% allocation difference on each end totaling a 28% space allocation loss to the Faery race. Thus making things extremely harder. I say remove the -10% population penalty on Faery race, set their elites to 1/8, 900gc, and 7.25NW. This will put the Faery race closer to each side space allocation wise while not giving a huge advantage.

Regarding the race roles:

Avian - Strong attacking hybrid that can do 3 attacks a day with thievery capabilities and must be shown as such. A/t
Dwarf - Strong attacking hybrid that is skilled with the art of building with magic capabilities and must be shown as such. A/m
Elf - Weak attacking hybrid with strong magic skills. Meant to cast effectively on most races (trouble against Faeries and other Elves) while sneaking attacks here and there on low defense provinces. a/M
Faeries - Supposed to be near impossible to break in thievery and magic because they won't have any attacking force. This is shown in the reduction to their specs and elites offense. T/M (Must reflect as such)
Halfling - Weak attacking hybrid with strong thievery skills. Meant to cast effectively on most races (trouble against Faeries and other Halflings) while sneaking attacks here and there on low defense provinces. a/T
Human - Weak t/m with attacking abilities? Not sure what they are doing with this one but if this is supposed to be a weak t/m with attacking abilities they need to make the elite and off spec reflect it.
Orc - Strong attacker with no magic or thievery ability. Pure Attacker (personally I view this as a Spear type Attacker)
Undead - Strong attacker with little to no magic/thievery abilities that is more of the tank style. Harder to ambush.

One is about my suggestion on the Elfs NM and the second is about Darkseels suggestion on the credits rewards of winning wars for the Orcs.

Nightmares on Elf is alright as it will create some more flavor for the game.

Regarding the WW specialist credits they'll probably be used up before the following war anyway so shouldn't be an issue. This is due to all the ops that happen in the war. Usually pure attackers have to train 2k ~ 3k elites easy to replenish their forces. Don't see anything wrong here.

A spell that you have a choice to use or not is not a curse. A good player will use RM even if he doesn't use it all the time.

I was refering to the part you need more acres allocated to Guilds for it to be effective. That's unless you want to end up having to cast it up to 6 times before you either run out of runes or it finally succesfully casts. This is what I was getting at.


At any rate. When will we get the Final Age 54 changes? I just don't want it to be like the Age 53 ones where we had only 1 1/2 days or something like that to number crunch etc.