Age 64 potential changes

[TommyB]

Couldn't agree more. Losing one point of offense on an elite that is rarely used for attack (by the vast majority of those playing the race) is not much of a nerf, and getting an extra 5% Def ME from GP vastly outdoes that small nerf.

Faeries had great attacking potential this age especially during longer wars. Let's say your def is 150k and enemy attackers are down to below 100k or chained way below nw range.. why wouldn't you use the free troops for attacking? Lowering their offense to 3 from 4 is a huge nerf to their offensive potential which is good because they were monsters that could basically bottomfeed all war while having great protection from ops. Especially sages with 15-20% mil. science on top of all that.

[Patrijspoortje]

what about giving Sage +40% sci effect and +25% sci protection, if they really need a big buff?
Sage not having sci protection still feels like Undead not being immune to plague.

Also, (new feature,) Thief op: steal books? Not sure at what rate though, and possible war-only, or just stronger in war.

[Bo To]

Races:
Avian - dislike it please rework it totally or remove it.

Dwarfs - too strong, maybe remove + 30% Combat Instant Spell Damage since BB is buffed and increase the NW of the elite to 5.5 or 5.75.

Elf - strong in defending from attacks weaker in defending from super thieves. Wouldn't pick it over faery.

Faeries - keep CS and I think 3/5 elite is too good. Faery elite should be 2/5 or even 1/5 since they are too strong in magic(MS(magic shield) + RM + MF + MA), thievery(CS + INVIS) and defending(GB + MP + TW). Just kill their off but don't take generals. Let them be able to attack deep chained provs in wars but that should be expensive. Disagree elite is expensive. In fort/eowcf elite cost is 650-750 with 10% arms and access to tog. Also nerf their bonus dmg on both magic and thievery. They are strong in defending from magic/thievery/attacks shouldn't be strong in offense...

Half - same as this age. As f/m I didn't see anything special in this super thieves. Couldn't break 4-6 tpa + cs + 10% wt. Maybe they can destroy elves but faery is absolutely immune to them.

Human - same as this age. Just slide buff but I dont like its elite... 2 races with 6/3 but humans elite is with much higher NW. Make the elite 6/2 and give them +10% population.

Ork - elite should be 7/2 and the NW should be 6.25.

Und - why no change there? Nerf them to -50% loses and 7/1 elite 6 NW. Still will have the best building space...

Personalities:

Sages - +40% sci bonus should be ok just like everyone else said.

Cleric - finally plague immunity.

Tact - nerf is ok. Personally I think tact was one of the best personalities for the last few ages.

Warr - maybe some buff there but not in numbers. Something new. Like spell for 1 attack that increases the gains instead of bl. It will be more useable.

WH - seriously? I mean for real? WH is one of the least played personalities every age and now its been nerfed. Give them immunity to riots and greeds and we are talking...

Mechanic:
Kingdom page:
Sat provs will be highlighted to the monarch. - can you give it to steward as well? Also can steward change the steward.

War win:
As someone in warring KD I'm concern about the change. Can you give some more details? Now the reward is 5% honor/land what would be the small bonus - like 1% or something?
About the land cap - never played for land so I don't know how good this change is...

Bug Fixes: TBC, probably looking at fort to fort gains, remembering GA and some behind the scenes admin stuff. Maybe add spells do be sorted by duration not by cast order.

[Meda]

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.

+5% from GP increases elite def from 5>5.25. That is hardly op compared to 6/7 elite offense from attackers.
Last age, Mystic's magic effectiveness was reduced from 75% to 50%. That was a big nerf to faery mystics. Clear sight did little benefit to faery rogues.

Now, all the cries about GP, MP, clear sight. Shall I remind you that they are spells that needs to be upkeep, spells that can be removed by a cheaper and much easier to cast MV? Spells that consume valuable mana during war? Remove all the spells if you think they are op, I wouldn't mind getting built in benefits like many other races. Simply making MV easier to cast is a nerf to faery.

A faery can play a hybrid mage/thief/attacker, pick 2 out of the 3. The fact is you can only excel in 2 of those 3 fields. You simply do not have enough resources to go high wpa, high tpa and high dpa/opa. Changing elites from 4/5 to 3/5 means that you are forcing all faeries to either go pure mage or hybrid mage/thief.

Those who only play faery as pure mage or hybrid mage/thief will not see the point. As I said earlier, leaving faery as it is is a nerf since all races are getting a buff, not to mention the buff to MV. Simply reducing the elite offense will only narrow the role of faeries.

[13nesta13]

If you take ud/tact largest attacking race combo this age and consider its stats.
Then look at avain /cleric for this age is it just me or are this now basically the same thing, but avain maybe a little stronger if you consider build rooms ect.
Have to remember the no horses just means that undeads o spec match avains elite so maybe you have 6 epa which is 1 point stronger on the ud, which there.o.specs would be more subject to ns damage and they would have less build room
So why are avains so "bad" and ud so good, esp with plague being void?

Avian cleric is still much more vulnerable to being camp hit at home OR chained with troops home in war, being 1 pt def elites. You dont get risk of plague initiating hits into an avian, but you get plague risk initiating hits into an undead.
Undeads ospecs do not get killed when hit at home, so their offense doesnt take a beat, avians do.

See the difference now?

Offense wise, at equal pump levels (troop per acre, sci etc), I can never foresee a case where avians actually have more offense than an undead as you stated. Sure you mentioned avians cant use stables but have 6 off elites, whereas undead is 5 pt with a horse = 6, so essentially equal. An undead on average runs about 30% elite army, then what about that 30% of his offensive troops? Its 8 points to 6 points, and thats a 33% difference. 33% of 30%, is 11% more MO.

The more important point still, is the earlier point where people can hit avian clerics with aplomb, but hitting into undead gives you plague. So no, they are not similar.

And yes, you guessed it. My conclusion is: avians are **** and undeads trump avians.

1 final point, avians in war cannot train defense with credits. Undeads can have flexibility of training offense, or defense, or a mixture of both. Flexibility.

[Zantetsuken]

I do not think +50 Science Effectiveness is overpowered at all on Sage. I think that is an appropriate strength. It is a *slight* indirect nerf to Mystics, which I am perfectly ok with considering how strong they have always been. And Mystic has better tools than Sage to be an effective caster.

[13nesta13]

On to my own thoughts about proposed changes, I understand there were previous comments that said why should the changes be molded to fit the top 10% of the playerbase and kingdoms.

My counter-statement is, you shouldnt make changes such that the top 10% ends up having no choice but running the same setup, same builds, same everything.

Everyone chasing land will revert to BB's setup last age, without a doubt. Dwarf sage core (powerful mods, good turtleability, resistant to razes which are so OP now), human sage/dwarf sage Cow/calf (even more so, with humans sciences getting cheaper). Only tweak, perhaps, just perhaps, looking into a couple halfers instead of faeries.

[13nesta13]

I do not think +50 Science Effectiveness is overpowered at all on Sage. I think that is an appropriate strength. It is a *slight* indirect nerf to Mystics, which I am perfectly ok with considering how strong they have always been. And Mystic has better tools than Sage to be an effective caster.

You sir, cannot be more wrong. Both on sage +50% sci being OKAY, and Mystics being strong as usual. As what was mentioned above, MV's made cheaper and easier to cast represents a nerf to mystics.

[Zantetsuken]

You sir, cannot be more wrong. Both on sage +50% sci being OKAY, and Mystics being strong as usual. As what was mentioned above, MV's made cheaper and easier to cast represents a nerf to mystics.

None of the personalities are truly strong, except maybe Cleric. But relative to each other, Mystic and Sage are fine as they are. The changes to MV and Sage will precipitate a change in the metagame, and I'm fine with that. Just let it happen.

[chalsdk]

Mystic is one of the weakest pers.. they get MS - Strongest spell by far, but by far weakest.. take away MS from em, and you end it with nothing. That spell does it all.

WH is borderlines useless, only reason to use it is IF you know your kingdom gona have honor, so if anything a noob trab, and a huge one. however I am perfectly fine with that - just find is a shame that so many fall into it.

[Zantetsuken]

Mystic is one of the weakest pers.. they get MS - Strongest spell by far, but by far weakest.. take away MS from em, and you end it with nothing. That spell does it all.

WH is borderlines useless, only reason to use it is IF you know your kingdom gona have honor, so if anything a noob trab, and a huge one. however I am perfectly fine with that - just find is a shame that so many fall into it.

They are all weak. But Mystic is definitely not the weakest. You're forgetting the WPA boost through science, extra mana, and double wizard training, which makes for a functional toolkit. Not a great one, but it gets the job done and does it better than Sage would.

[chalsdk]

They are all weak. But Mystic is definitely not the weakest. You're forgetting the WPA boost through science and double wizard training, which makes for a functional toolkit. Not a great one, but it gets the job done and does it better than Sage would.

Use 1 day longer i fort, end of story! ITs the inwar that matters, not all the fancy outside!

You can get a stronger bost with sage!
Some pers are nto weak--- be a WH in a kingdom that knows it will have honor - jerks - or whatever, and once you get higher then count, BOOM

[Andurilas]

Mystic guild bonus is a land efficiency bonus for the entire age, and not just for wizard training.

[Palem]

[13nesta13]

None of the personalities are truly strong, except maybe Cleric. But relative to each other, Mystic and Sage are fine as they are. The changes to MV and Sage will precipitate a change in the metagame, and I'm fine with that. Just let it happen.

By the same parallels, in your own words, clerics are not buffed, they're nerfed. They lost extra 10% less losses from 50% to 40%. All that change (war heros have plague immunity) does is drive a change in metagame, being that the game will see less undeads in the server. Undeads were only used this age because they were strong and contagious and cheap and efficient. Now they lost the contagious part, which obviously impacts the part where they're "strong", and then you see that orcs got buffed with more gains, then why use undeads after all?

So by the same logic, clerics got nerfed no? Plague immunity is imbued, but at a cost of 10% more troop losses. But there arent really that many undeads around, so which is more useful?

Get real. Sage should never have same magic science buff as a mystic.