plz lower dragon cost ...
Printable View
plz lower dragon cost ...
since you can slay with leet now .... it gonna die so fast ... =\
I don't see that being a problem. Honestly, half the reason for sending a dragon isn't for the dragon's effects, it's for crippling the enemy's armies to kill it. After a dragon or three is sent during a war, you really just don't have much left for defenses due to throwing defspecs at it. Being able to send elites is actually nice because it means people will be tossing away offense at it, which is the major limiting reagent in a war. Whoever runs out of offense first loses, generally, and if you can encourage orcs and undead to throw out their elites? That's actually beneficial for the person sending the dragon. If you can encourage faeries to toss out elites? You've really just crippled their economy to replace them, meaning they can't reasonably send a new dragon of their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkz Azn
As a whole, having an enemy kingdom kill your dragon with elites is a GOOD thing.
Having more science is not a drawback. It means you get to have more science.
Replacing the cost bonus with an efficiency bonus would be a huge buff, because it means that if you run the same rate, you get substantially more out of it.
Well, here's the question: why do you play a sage in the first place? Sages free up land, that's about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anatak1989
You get extra food science (save on farms), population science (save on homes), alchemy (save on banks), tools (save on all land), crime (save on thieve's dens) and, of course, channeling (save on towers & guilds).
The only science which doesn't replace land is military science, everything else is flat out equivalent to building efficiency.
If the only benefit you get is effectively having "More land", then having a downside which involves "less land" means you're counterproductive. A disadvantage which cancels out the advantage defeats the purpose of even having the advantage in the first place.
As sage currently sits, it essentially reads "+15% building space, -15% building space" which is just kinda silly. Hence, a sage really shouldn't have to build a ton of their land up as schools. It's like saying to a merchant that merchants produce +30% income, but peasants only produce 2.25gc per worker with a job instead of 3.0, which is like... why bother?
I don't understand anything, but one change I'd like to see is a current age/next age side-by-side comparo. This would save a lot of flippydoodle on my part. - A bunch of people are saying avians are worthless and I thought they looked about the same. I want to feel like they're worthless to and a side-by-side comparo might get me there.
The point is that you wouldn't be physically capable of running the same rate since you wouldn't have the -30% science costs nor the 1 book per 3 acres per tick. This would mean you'd have less total science, but the science you have would be roughly equal in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zauper
And yes, having more science is flat out a drawback in that, not only does it artificially raise your networth, it also means you're the ideal target to hit with a learn attack, as you'll simply lose proportionately more science when attacked. And as stated to Anatak1989, building an excessive number of schools defeats the benefit of being a sage in the first place.
You have to look at the concepts at their core purpose of what they do. The math is just a placeholder for a concept, and the concept of science is land efficiency.
That's a huge problem every age. The "changes" post is not a list of changes but instead a list of proposed next age numbers.
Here's a bit of help =3Quote:
Originally Posted by StratOcastle
Avians
(Old benefits)
- 30% Attack Time
+ 15% Birth Rate
(New benefits)
-30% Attack Time
+20% Birth Rate
(Old spells)
Fanaticism, Greater Protection
(New spells)
Fanaticism, Greater Protection
(Old drawbacks)
No Access to Stables
(New drawbacks)
No Access to Stables
-10% gains on attacks
(Old elite)
Elite: 6/2, 550gc, 5NW
(New elite)
Elite: 6/2, 500gc, 5NW
Direct comparison:
+5% birth rates
-10% attack gains
-50gc elite cost
They're not "worthless", but they definitely got a significant nerf, which is odd, considering that avians weren't really particularly powerful as it was, and they got a secondary nerf by having tactician lose another -5% attack speed on top of their other nerf.
Toss in that avians are probably the hardest attacker to play due to needing to be excessively active to hit every time their army's home, it's not like there were enough top notch avians out there to even really make them a big threat in the first place. It's just kind of a silly nerf to a race that really isn't especially powerful compared to orcs or undead in the first place.
You can run extreme science without being sage. You're right, you'd lose out on the free books. Your bonuses would be substantially higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsuni
You're wrong about what science does. Science isn't about replacing buildings, it's about supplementing them. Why would you run less guilds if you had channeling sci? You wouldn't; you'd use your WPA advantage to op. The same goes for crime. Alchemy doesn't trade off with banks, it supplements them. Population is the best sci of all, and it just gives you more peasants, which means more you can do with.
Hey guys, having gold is a drawback. Don't stock gold. It adds NW artificially, you see. What's that you say, we gained 50k acres by virtue of having more gold? Well, that's interesting.Quote:
And yes, having more science is flat out a drawback in that, not only does it artificially raise your networth, it also means you're the ideal target to hit with a learn attack, as you'll simply lose proportionately more science when attacked. And as stated to Anatak1989, building an excessive number of schools defeats the benefit of being a sage in the first place.
You know what else is a drawback? Lower OPNW or DPNW. So. What. You gain more strength by having more military, more science, etc. Deal with it. If you don't like having science, don't play sage.
Ideal target to learn? The ideal target to learn is the one with the most science. If you buy science, you are a target for learns. Don't want to get learned? Don't invest your science. (Or, ignore people using a terrible attack). The ideal target to plunder? He's the one with the most gc. If you have gc, you're an ideal target to be plundered.
Here's a helpful hint:
Have acres and no defense, but want to keep them? Build GS. Have science and no defense, but want to keep it? Build schools.
Nope. Science isn't about land efficiency.Quote:
You have to look at the concepts at their core purpose of what they do. The math is just a placeholder for a concept, and the concept of science is land efficiency.
It's not even clear to me that you understand what the purpose of guilds or TDs are, or how DBE works and why that means it would be a real dumb idea to try and replace banks with alchemy.
yea but specs do less damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkz Azn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slayerviper
this. I agree that spending runes and time to get your basic merchant bonus should not be a thing. go back to basic percent bonus.
I suggest that Clerics have Animate Dead rather than Pitfalls.. it fits the personality better and besides, anyone who chooses Cleric isn't going to have the wpa to cast Pitfalls especially when he can get his Faery buddy to do it for him.
Proposed:Quote:
Originally Posted by StratOcastle
Avians
-30% Attack Time
+20% Birth Rate
No Access to Stables
-10% gains on attacks
Fanaticism, Greater Protection
Elite: 6/2, 500gc, 5NW
Previous:
Avians
-30% Attack Time
+15% Birth Rate
No Access to Stables
Fanaticism, Greater Protection
Elite: 6/2, 550gc, 5NW
----
The -10% gains hurts, especially when you have orcs sitting across the table with +25% gains, means an orc is hitting for a net 35% more (and kills 25% more on hits from other racial)
This age there was an argument to be made where an avian could out gain an orc by being ontop of army in/army out and avian was still under played. Now it makes an under used race even less appealing.
If anything they should have taken avian and given them something like free draft or something more creative. Instead they went the opposite rout and nerfed an underplayed race.
That said, the changes look good - except for cheaper undead elite, that one didn't make a ton of sense to me.
Gogo human + sage or halfer + merchant.
Instead they went the opposite rout and nerfed an underplayed race.
I guess that's one way to get a new race into the game, keep making an old one underplayed.