Age 64 potential changes

[Sheister]

Sage bonus should be maximum 50% of whatever the sci bonuses given to mystics and rogues. Give them some other boost. So if you want mystics at 50% sci bonus, then sages get 25%. give them back their book protection if you want to buff then a bit....

Dropping faery offense.... really? Why? Because we want them to turtle MORE? Really? That just makes no sense at all.if you are going to do that, then increase their defense to 6 again and give them 50 more gc/elite. I wish you all would decide what you think you want faes to be. Its getting annoying.

I can't decide how I feel about capping war rewards. It disincentivises warring in the top..... do we want that? I know the rewards have come to be very large sometimes but a hard cap.... I don't know how I feel about that. It means that its better to just whore again and avoid wars all together right?

[splackavellie182003]

As far as tactician goes I think it should remain 20% reduced attack time. Nerfing it makes it about as playable as Warrior. Just a matter of flipping buildings. to make up for whatever lose you choose to deal with. At least 20% made tact more appealing.

[splackavellie182003]

Dropping faery offense.... really? Why? Because we want them to turtle MORE? Really? That just makes no sense at all.if you are going to do that, then increase their defense to 6 again and give them 50 more gc/elite. I wish you all would decide what you think you want faes to be. Its getting annoying.

Totally agree with this. If they are going to be forced to turtle at least give them that.

[Funky]

Selecting land as a bonus will also result in a smaller honor bonus and vice versa.

Can someone explain?

[SlightlyOverdosed]

+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.

You're quoting me, but you must have intended to reply to someone else.
Times I've claimed fae change is "op" = 0.
Times you are explaining to me why fae changes are not "op" = 2.
Times I've cried about MP,GP, CS = 0.
Times you've brought it up = 1.

Or am I not allowed to mention changes that benefit the fae, but only those that hurt it? otherwise I am labeled as crying?

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.

Orc cannot T/M either. it's locked into attacking, why does faery has to have the options to attack better than 3 point elite? Because you want it to is not a valid argument.
You should be adjusting your play style to the changes, not vice verse.

As I said earlier, leaving faery as it is is a nerf since all races are getting a buff

Fae is not left as it is. please read again the paragraph you've quoted in your previous message.

[splackavellie182003]

I don't like this part of the Cleric change. I think it should keep its buffs but also retain the -50%

-40% Your Military Casualties (on attack or defense) (down from 50%)

[Zantetsuken]

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.

Cleric wasn't nerfed. But now Cleric has a more complete toolkit. Last age, Clerics still had to run Hospitals because of Plague, which was a colossal waste of building space. If you're going to make a personality that doesn't need Hospitals, then naturally it should be immune to Plague as well, or else you have to build buildings that are significantly less effective than they would be on a different personality. So now the Cleric toolkit is more complete and it can more effectively accomplish its role. So even though they lost 10% Combat losses, the increased efficiency through Plague Immunity still makes it an overall buff.

You realize in the past Sages had better science buffs than Mystics right? Stop freaking out.

[13nesta13]

As far as tactician goes I think it should remain 20% reduced attack time. Nerfing it makes it about as playable as Warrior. Just a matter of flipping buildings. to make up for whatever lose you choose to deal with. At least 20% made tact more appealing.

I agree here, the problem was not with the tact personality. Like really? Tacts have been -20% attack time for as LONG as I can remember, and last time it was even more OP, where tacts were immune to ambush. After that tacts stayed at -20% and warriors stayed pretty much the same as they are until now. The problem with the power of tacts is not with the personality. Its with the race that they were used with. Something should be done with undeads, perhaps their % chance to plague, or chance to cure plague, because ever since the nerf previously (where undeads cannot train elites), the devs have come up with a lot of buffs that now make undeads OP as an attacker (even higher - offensive losses, loss of - sci effectiveness and whatnot). Undead tacts are just too scary in warring tier, and top tier core when used in small numbers.

[maxx]

The only thing that seems weird and hasn't already been mentioned is the NW difference between Dwarf and Human Elites. Identical units that are 6.5 and 5.25 NW seems a little too far off to me. I get the reason for the cost being so different, but the NW is just screwy.

[chalsdk]

Cleric wasn't nerfed. But now Cleric has a more complete toolkit. Last age, Clerics still had to run Hospitals because of Plague, which was a colossal waste of building space. If you're going to make a personality that doesn't need Hospitals, then naturally it should be immune to Plague as well, or else you have to build buildings that are significantly less effective than they would be on a different personality. So now the Cleric toolkit is more complete and it can more effectively accomplish its role. So even though they lost 10% Combat losses, the increased efficiency through Plague Immunity still makes it an overall buff.

You realize in the past Sages had better science buffs than Mystics right? Stop freaking out.

thats some solid logic - I aprove that!

[13nesta13]

Cleric wasn't nerfed. But now Cleric has a more complete toolkit. Last age, Clerics still had to run Hospitals because of Plague, which was a colossal waste of building space. If you're going to make a personality that doesn't need Hospitals, then naturally it should be immune to Plague as well, or else you have to build buildings that are significantly less effective than they would be on a different personality. So now the Cleric toolkit is more complete and it can more effectively accomplish its role. So even though they lost 10% Combat losses, the increased efficiency through Plague Immunity still makes it an overall buff.

Ugh, no? If you're running cleric with hospitals for the purpose of curing plague, you're playing it terribly wrong. If I were running hospitals to further lower troop losses and have plague curing as a side bonus, then yes that at least makes more sense.
Honestly if I were a cleric and I had -50% losses, I wouldnt even want to run hospitals. Which is better, running 12% hospitals to cure plague (which is % based per tick as well, compared to casting NB), or say running 2-3% more guilds for much higher self spell success and getting more tries on NB in? I save a 8% space there by choosing the latter.
If you're telling me you're running only say 5% hospitals to try and cure plague then obviously your argument doesnt hold. The % chance to cure per tick is a joke at that small amount (7.6% chance of curing plague on 80% BE).

Compound that on say an orc cleric, having that 2-3% higher guilds means I get higher success keeping up Reflect magic, ANON (this is huge) and all my other selfies, and that saves more towers indirectly right? I could argue those runes saved on failed casts could even pay for the runes I would have had to try and cast NB when plagued.

You realize in the past Sages had better science buffs than Mystics right? Stop freaking out.

Dont make references to ages where its obviously not the past 3 ages. If they werent broken back then, why were they nerfed to current numbers where Mystic bonus > sage sci bonus?

[Zantetsuken]

The only thing that seems weird and hasn't already been mentioned is the NW difference between Dwarf and Human Elites. Identical units that are 6.5 and 5.25 NW seems a little too far off to me. I get the reason for the cost being so different, but the NW is just screwy.

Elite NW is a way for the devs to balance Offense per Networth. Dwarves have more OPNW than Humans, but Humans get a wartime OME increase, so it's about even. In the same way, Avians have the lowest NW elite, which somewhat softens the blow of its lower offensive potential.

[Andurilas]

The NW/elite helps scale the gains too.

[Zantetsuken]

Ugh, no? If you're running cleric with hospitals for the purpose of curing plague, you're playing it terribly wrong. If I were running hospitals to further lower troop losses and have plague curing as a side bonus, then yes that at least makes more sense.
Honestly if I were a cleric and I had -50% losses, I wouldnt even want to run hospitals. Which is better, running 12% hospitals to cure plague (which is % based per tick as well, compared to casting NB), or say running 2-3% more guilds for much higher self spell success and getting more tries on NB in? I save a 8% space there by choosing the latter.
If you're telling me you're running only say 5% hospitals to try and cure plague then obviously your argument doesnt hold. The % chance to cure per tick is a joke at that small amount (7.6% chance of curing plague on 80% BE).

Compound that on say an orc cleric, having that 2-3% higher guilds means I get higher success keeping up Reflect magic, ANON (this is huge) and all my other selfies, and that saves more towers indirectly right? I could argue those runes saved on failed casts could even pay for the runes I would have had to try and cast NB when plagued.




Dont make references to ages where its obviously not the past 3 ages. If they werent broken back then, why were they nerfed to current numbers where Mystic bonus > sage sci bonus?

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.

[TommyB]

Suggestion for sage:

Science effectiveness bonus = 50% * MIN(1, median acre size / prov acre size).

That should help solve the problem of everyone using them for cows!

Non-Cows still have to deal with getting learn attacked all the time so it's fair! ;)