Age 113 Changes Discussion

Open Archived Scarlet opened this discussion on

Bongo -

Dragons were already made to weak.. you wrecked them further...

Kairon -

Tiefling didn't need that change at all, Dwarf is being encouraged as an attacker good, mori finally playable great
Dragons didn't need that change either

Noodle -

Very disappointed to see no changes in the oow interference, like serious come on. I’ll predict right now there will be screams of coop etc next age
Should be higher on priority list

Boats -

To be honest. 99.9% of the time. it's your alliance that makes a fit about it noodle. I wouldnt mind making it more hmmm shall I say detractable but atm. It be easier to hide in wars, than people doing coop. (Not saying it aint happening)

As far as the drag. I agree that we could make it more attacker playable.

Tiefling was missing something. It really doesnt take off until you get to 5k or 6k acres. Lets see how the changes to them play out.

Noodle -

Oh I’m not saying it’s not boats but those individuals are no longer with me or even playing that I’m aware of, I just can foresee issues and am pushing for stiffer oow penalty’s. That’s all.

Buffy -

The problem will always come back to current player base sadly.

Boats -

Gotcha man. I understand the frustration

Smokey -

The deadlines for changes were fast approaching, so we didn't want to rush any out of war protection changes without fully discussing them. There'll always be a next age in which to implement them, so we'll chip away at things as we go until we find a better balance. [:D]

Hal -

nice changes overall..brings a lot of races back into play apart from dragons. not sure about the tiefling changes though. seem like we are not sure if we're making it a mage / attacker / a mage that can attack/an attacker that can mage.. it was fine way it was imo

Noodle -

@ Smokey ty!!!

Bolle -

Tiefling can be a hybrid but not great at either option.

Tommies -

Tiefling provide higher dmg in wars vs a pure thief or mage.

That's what we in #42 have been doing and works great. [up]

Kairon -

Tiefling elites need a need for the amount you accumulate over time tbh like 4/5

Amir -

am sorry to say this but the age changes make me not want to play this coming age.

the reason being that while seeing the age change to the races and sci apart from each other they dont look bad, when put together they basically butcher theifs and attackers other than ravens. atm just on looking at the basic numbers of the races when also putting in sci it makes it very hard to play any of the theifs. and other attackers other than ravens proved last age to be hard to keep up and now with the added bonus of the new sci outlook it makes them even harder to play.

and am sorry to say this but who ever did the changes on the DE was a idiot who knows nothing about balance. that just made me very sad to see. [cry]

Buffy -

I agree totally

Smokey -

Amir, could you please be specific in your criticism of the DE balance changes? (Was it the cost, efficiency, or traits for the race, etc.?)


Amir -

DE the cost of units to their def points to their income ratio, also efficiency compared to theifs when taking into account the new sci setup makes them op frankly. atm they are the most efficient with the new setup by far. and with their offspecs being given a boost they can go attacker late age (not something smart to do but a great possiblity) just look at the dif between a DE and a brit. just running a few numbers with a DE i could out race a brit to 2k acres easly... also a def spec on a brit is almost the same cost ratio to def of a DE's leet... that just doesnt add up in my head for any resemblance of balance.
DE is tied with fairy's in second place with cheapest def specs in def/cr ratio following ravens who have cheapest. now that might not mean much but in long run it makes a huge dif in the balance of the game because of who can get def faster and stay safe and so on so forth.

just look at the change:
Sorcerer 0/4 390cr -> 0/5 450cr
Dark Priestess 2/6 940cr -> 2/6 750cr

that doesnt seem right for its leets to cost 190 cr less and their def specs to get a bump that allows them to be the 3rd cheapest/def unit in the game. (dragon not included because of civs ratio dif and income dif) also not really needed for a race that had 6 players last age and could content most of the game mostly (it had 2nd highest mage firepower with fairy being first only if it was a very active fame raping fairy, otherwise DE had about the same if not more in some cases.)

this wouldnt be as bad if you didnt add in the new science changes that make war sci and inf sci both give a Increased military upkeep. when this is added in it just ruins most races. now i am sorry for singling out DE but that was just seeing the huge change on them specially for the leets being such a huge dif compared to most other races:


this might not seem like much but at least to me likes looking at the numbers before deciding on a race to play its a huge slap to the face that a race that was at the least could be said active in the last age got a huge perk when it wasnt really called for and the races that werent even being played or only had 1-2 players were ignored.

and dont get me started on mori. (mori is not a playable theif race at all, hence no one played them last age. their theifs are too expensive and too easly lost, they are an attacking race that is able to get their own intel, thats all. specially with their new leets setup and all that.)

i originally wrote out the whole 2 pages thing that explained the numbers in depth for each race and then compared them. but realized that it was too long and that most wouldnt understand the math and i would end up having to explain more of my math than my point... not something am fond of doing.

final thing i would like to say is that i wish we could go back to the way of swapping out races every age, those races that dont work or are broken or so on get switched out with other races that we havent played for a long time. 2-3 races each age would also spice things up a little. now i know this is a bit off topic but thats just a thought. instead of such huge changes to a race that was at the middle of the pack in being played the age before. we should look at the races either only 1 person or no one plays or everyone played and change/remove those instead.
just a thought of a crazy person i guess...

Bolle -

Brittonian earn more.

But yeah brittonian elite is very expensive.

However, the britt's 2/6 is effectively a 2/8 cuz the homes hold 33% more citz. 6*1.33=8.
So britts cost more but are way more efficient than dark elves. Which they need cuz theyre thieves.

Scarlet -

just a thought of a crazy person i guess...

If you've had these ideas for ages, post them sooner ^,^
And the intent is to rotates races for 114.

Bolle -

Quick edit: Amir was so sure, so I ran the numbers. He's wrong, it's not a black-and-white matter, it's actually reaaaally close.

Brittonians earn 242 (968-726) more crowns per home than a dark elf, a difference of 33%. This is relevant for the start of the age, which you're concerned about.

Both Dark Elf and Britt have very expensive elites and cheap specs. For the age start, only the specs are relevant. I imagine that like Britt it takes Dark Elf around 14 days to earn back the elite-spec cost difference.

Britt have a 525 cr for 0/4, DE a 0/5 for 525. 5/4=1.25 which is less than 1.33 (the britt income bonus), meaning Dark Elves need to make up for this difference in cost with mines.

Standardizing income differences:
Britt gets 0.3*400*1.1*2.2=290.4
DE get 217.8
puts Britt with 0.3 homes at 72.6 extra income compared to Dark Elf.
Both running full mines at 0.6 puts each at 240 crowns income.

4*1.1586=4.6344. Brittonian (assuming full mines!) get .37 less def points for the same money.
However, Brittonian do not have increased explore costs, meaning the percentage of income that goes into that could well carry them ahead of the Dark Elves.


Now, I did not come up with the Dark Elf changes. I personally think the elite costs on britt is way too high. But they're not hopeless at all. I went full elite last age because I calculated that after 16 days of running an elite unit it would have earned ithe difference of its cost compared to a def spec's cost back in increased taxes, leaving me with a more defensible tribe. Of course this means less growth in the long run, but age circumstances were such that this did not affect growth at all (Raven at the top, zero other attackers).

Concerning the increase in thief cost, it went from 75 cr (a cost paying for itself if released in 34 ticks if you just put the soldiers on the market) to 150 crowns (68 ticks). Basically, you now need to pay a cost of 75-100 crowns for the luxury of being able to just release thieves if you're the kill target. Now, if you remember that the 2/6 is essentially a 2/8, brittonian were the single most unkillable t/m and actually still are, it's just that you gotta pay a bit for it now.

So here's your two pages of numbers. Have fun. At first sight it may look like you thought, but if you run the numbers it shows a different picture.

Edit: concerning Mori Hai I made a suggestion: which received minimal feedback. Mori Hai as they are now are prone to die cuz of the 45% homes; they are supposed to be a thief-attacker hybrid but this is just exacerbating the 45% homes issue. If the elites are made too efficient it just becomes an OP thief so the unit values need to stay low. My solution was to focus them 100% on the early game and just let them fall off late and be killed.
Now, even if you didn't like this setup, there were zero other suggestions for Mori Hai. So yeah, then the current version is what you get.

As for the military upkeep; yes it's an issue but going war sci is a choice - just now it's going to cost you even more growth. Every alliance will still want an attacker for the dominant position they give your alliance in the EARLY game, before the war sci. Then they're already safe up there so the military upkeep is of minimal relevance. It does hurt the t/ms however, who are already pumping science and now also have to pay more for their military. In other words, this is not a change that hurts thieves and attackers; it's a change that hurts alliances that want to war.
Now that's a way more valid concern.
However, if you're so concerned about it, just stack rps until you can get 90%+ and then invest it all at the same time and bypass all the upkeep increases.

Kairon -

To be honest the only reason I still don't want to play dark elf is the selfish trait, makes them only good as a solo player and what's the point in being a bomb mage as a solo.. I believe also that dark elf is too slow training only def specs or only elites because it's too costly maybe they didn't need to have their cost decreased by so much but it does make them slightly more appealing again

Noodle -

So raven was pretty good last age, but why would we make them stronger early age?
Not sure why they got changed from a 5/5 to a6/4 with the same cost, and on top of it decrease the off units cost by 30g...
Honestly why make them stronger and have nothing else change except the extended rest for failed attack...
I’m just really curious about the reasoning

Amir -

bolle i dont think you read what i said at all or only the parts you wanted to read and ignored what i said. while the DE changes could be brushed under the rug the way you are doing, you are ignoring the new huge changes to the science that changes a whole lot of the games dynamic when trying to effectively in wars and against big allainces as a small allaince or even a large one,

frankly i see its pointless to say much since from your reply you are showing that you are jumping defensively to what i said instead of just reading it and seeing that there might be something there. rue the day that someone else might see something you didnt.

Boats -

@ Amir. I am going to say the following. First off I was the one who pushed for the DE to get lowered in terms of cost, I actually wanted a 2/7 at 950 but I will take the lower cost and less efficiency and see how it works out. Reason being is so it could be competetive with the Temp , Fairy and the Tiefling. Reality, is that people complained that the DE was not worth playing ages ago. I played the DE to find out if it was true and sure freaking enough it was, it was freaking horrendous, horrible I couldn't grow in a warring ally to not even 4k because the leets were just too expensive at full growth mode!!!

I have been playing 5 ages testing races to test during active ages, to find out how they play. Usually, peeps know I play spirit, why? Cause I am a bad mofo as a spirit. You state thieves are worthless, I will state that it's an assumption, not a fact my friend. Why do I say that? Well, let's compare last age for example: the top 25 tribes. 10 were thieves at least, a mix of mostly britts and owls by what I saw, 1 or 2 spirits if I recall. You stating that the DE was unbalanced is laughable at best, when you compare the amount of Temps/Fairy's vs DE's played. Age 111 in the top 25 tribes there was 13 thieves. Mix of britts, 1 mori, spirits and owls. I will say the majority was thieves in the top 25 out of 3 types of races. Look at the stats page. What race is not playing? Tiefling!!! What race is on top now? A DE, Fairy right below, Temp not bad either compared to numbers in mages. To me it seems that it's kinda even now in terms of playing. But we will see the strengths once we get to the 2nd or 3rd week.

I do agree that the DE off spec you can go attacker late age, if you indeed make it that far. But hell, isn't the Temp and Tiefling the same way? What are you going off on? That it's the only mage race that can? Eagles could go thieves as well and was that a problem, spirit can go attacker, is that a problem? What is then, why now a DE a problem with their Off spec? If you want to state that every type of race let it be a mage, attacker and thief should be one dimensional, ok. Now that I understand but at that point we would have to revamp all races to meet that criteria mate.
So, you are saying the thieves are worthless because of science? Can you elaborate on the huge research dynamic change, regarding how it affects thieves that bad?

I do agree with you that Ravens got a bit of a boost, then again did they? When now they have to get more def specs than usual? I would say that it's kinda balanced out and if for some reason they are indeed a bit better, we will change it back next age.

Tiefling. I was the one who actually pushed for that. Why shall you say? Cause I played the Tiefling last age and I saw that it wasn't as powerful as it showed. Granted, I didn't actually use the mage part but it was not too comparable to a Temp's power and growth. Hence, the small boost. If it doesn't work or if it's too much. We can then tone it back next age as well.

Drag, I also agree with Bulby that the race is not as strong as it was and next age we will re-evaluate it.

Bolle, let me tell ya, took it like a champ and didn't out no one in staff, on who voted or wanted what changes and that is how a freaking admin is supposed to act. That is one reason why he has always had my respect. He shut his mouth and took it like a champ because we are all a team in staff and while we might not all agree we come to agreements in give and take, like the DE where I said ok, lower the cost and lower the efficiency.

So if you want to blame me, go ahead brother, just let the age play out and see who does what. Then once the age is over, make suggestions and believe me, we will listen if it makes sense. [heart][up]

Amir -

@Boats. you assertion about making DE balance with temp is funny since there was only 2 temps last age. and only one of them in top 25.
last age mage to theif ratio was 19 mages to 20 theifs out of the 51 players. of those at top 25 it was 12 mages to 10 theifs. top 10 it was 5 mages to 2 theifs.
when looked at the race ratio while there werent alot of DE players there was still 6 players playing DE (that is 11% of the player base btw.) while that can be said not to compare to brits who had 9 players (thats 17% of players) it doesnt seem a race that no one wants to play as you make it out to be. not like mori who only had two players (one at 1388 acres and the other 973 acres. )

there are no eagles atm... in regards to offspecs it was a off comment that was ment to show how much a huge change it felt like from what they used to be. kinda like DE just got christmass twice and everyone else got coal in their stockings.

in regards to science am sorry to have to say this out since you cant seem to see it. but when u add another addition to milt upkeep it affects those who run more milt. (bolle made a comment about not running sci or saving till u have 90% doesnt help at all btw) so those affected by the change are those who have higher than others in milt count. meaning the ones most affected are attackers that have to run both def and offspecs or combo of leets and those. and specially affected are theifs who have tendency to run as much theifs as they can get away with thinking that they can release if targeted and survive with that. now if your in an allaince that likes to try to max sci and so on or to get at least war and inf sci up so they can war among other things of having faster return times.
when you add these up together you get a brit as you call it who is by bolles words that the numbers are sooo close is wrong. again he just took the parts of what i said and basically nitpicked what he wanted to respond and ignored the whole picture of what i was talking about. as a brit you already have a huge milt upkeep and as a brit in a allaince (at least in ours) it means that you need inf as max as you can and get war sci to 60% asap for faster return time on theifs and more tp and mana and so on. that means an increase to milt upkeep of almost 80% specially if u try to keep war up higher to be safe or us who had it above 90% most of the age. if so that would add the upkeep to 90% or soo.

that is a huge deterrent for me to play brit or any other race that would have a higher than others milt units to civs ratio. again the whole talk of brits was taken out of context as that was just used as an example showing that a brit who should basically have a superior income but expensive troops where now obsolete compared to DE's. their theifs becoming more expensive means nothing. their expensive leets mean nothing and is within reason. what doesnt add up was that their def specs almost had the same cost value as a DE's cost value for their leets. and with added bonus of the milt upkeep almost going double it means while these races might do okay at the beginning to mid age late age they wont be able to afford as much as said counter parts of mages.

i would also like to point out this ages setup btw compared to last age:

Races Race Players %
Brittonian 7 16.67 %
Dark Elf 5 11.9 %
Spirit 5 11.9 %
Fairy 4 9.52 %
Dwarf 4 9.52 %
High Elf 4 9.52 %
Dragon 3 7.14 %
Templar 3 7.14 %
Owl 3 7.14 %
Mori Hai 2 4.76 %
Raven 2 4.76 %

no tieflings at all.
brits that were over almost 15 at start of the age are half what it was now (not 100% sure on the 15 but it was around that many if not more.)
17 theifs to 12 mages to 13 attackers.
but i dont really want to count dwarfs as attackers since they havent been played as attackers in a long time. they are mostly played as mages from what i have seen. maybe it will be different this age around. same with spirits as i have seen alot of spirits being played as mage or attacker than i have seen them as pure theifs.
also would like to point out that out of the 7 brits being played only 4 of them in full allainces and the rest are in 2-3 man allainces. (not counting the one in 125 cause i have never seen him above 1k acres and last 2 ages he was still at 500 acres end of age) meaning only 4 real brits this age compared to the 9 brits last age of those that 5 were in top 25...
Page 1 2