Message for developers. About: new patch

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Message for developers. About: new patch

This topic contains 199 replies, has 42 voices, and was last updated by  Nodor 7 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 200 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #200903

    Wallthing
    Member

    I haven’t thought this through entirely but what about making pounce more… realistic?

    When a real animal ‘pounces’ on something it is trying to take the enemy down, either to kill the enemy by itself or to let packmates deliver the killing blow. In stead of putting the cheetah in defense mode, what if Pounce removed (or had a chance to remove) most if not all of the target’s movement points (but not AP)? You’d probably also want to leave the damage a bit higher than a regular attack. This should make cooperative killing of tough or mobile units possible while leaving the cheetah with a chance to take out weak supports 1v1 but also making the cheetah pretty vulnerable if doing this alone.

    Probably best not to change things up this much but I felt the idea was worth sharing.

    #201806

    NuMetal
    Member

    Well, they are both the weakest and one of the most expensive irregulars in the game. And strategically useless when there is no UG.

    They may be the second weakest racial irregular damagewise (Orcs are worse and Icescapers too but I wouldn’t count them because of freeze), but they do have the best defense+resistance. Also when you are playing with underground turned on they have the potential to be the cheapest irregular since they can make more money than their upkeep costs every turn.

    But none of that is really important because you simply can’t look at these single units in isolation.
    The Prospector is a unit in the Dwarven lineup and the Dwarven lineup is among the best there are so there is no problem with this one unit being a little below average.

    #202992

    SugeBearX
    Member

    *Sigh* As a lurker here who rarely posts, I likely have no real right to voice my opinion…but I am going to nonetheless. I love this game…I really do, but I sorely wish that balancing wasn’t chained solely to the whims of the multiplayer crowd. In my time lurking on these forums, the post count of the devs in multiplayer balance threads is DRAMATICALLY higher than in single player balance threads.

    One of the major reasons I never post here is because, rightly or wrongly, I feel that my opinions as a single player are not respected or desired. I have read enough threads here to say that the voices of people who don’t play multiplayer are often greeted with disdain and occasionally outright animosity. Furthermore, many of the multiplayer balance threads seem to exhibit precisely the same sense of entitlement I so frequently see leveled at single players.

    And now the only balance issue I will EVER address: I am a single player…I like pounce just fine the way it is…leave it the hell alone. If it makes the souls of tourney players blacken and their hearts bleed…tough. There are a ton of things about this game balanced towards multiplayer I would like changed, but I don’t spend my days here griping about them and trying to get them changed regardless of how another segment of the player base may feel about the changes. This game was designed from the ground up for the multiplayer game. It was primarily beta tested by those who exclusively play multiplayer. Can’t that be enough? If you sense a certain amount of unfriendliness, it is merely a reflection of the attitude I frequently see leveled at “my kind of player.”

    P.S. The good news is, after this post you won’t have hear from me again…Cheers!

    #202994

    Stormwind
    Member

    Part of the reason balance threads are done mostly by MP’ers is because thats the arena where imbalances are most likely to be ferreted out.

    And the bulk of imbalances in MP’er games will also be imbalanced in SP.

    Most Mp’ers probably also play single player. I certainly do, and the bulk of my playing is probably in singleplayer or effectively singleplay via MP team against the AI with friends. I would estimate 80% of my gametime is SP.

    So, having said that, its still only MP concerns over balance that drive me. Balance the MP arena and let the rest work itself out. Why? Because an imbalance in MP RUINS MP. And a balanced MP will largely balance SP, which is not nearly so concerned with balance anyway.

    If something is imbalanced in SP but not in MP, it does not effect the SP experience with anything like the magnitude of MP.

    So, speaking as a someone who still majorly plays SP…I say balance MP. Only. SP will work itself out and wont be harmed by this. Only helped actually IMO.

    if you need to see clearly how imbalance can ruin MP in a way that does not effect SP. just take a look at BBB’s tournament thread. Dwarves…prosepctors digging…should we ban dwarves underground? This would never even come up as an issue in SP. But MP is very sensitive to this, if one race is overpowered such that every particiapnt is forced to use it or lose…well the MP experience is just toast.

    #203008

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Except that when you say “MP” you also say “Autocombat” for a sizable part – so when you want to balance MP, most of the time you want to actually balance autocombat and not units.

    In other words – if the AI in autocombat can’t handle Scoundrels, the solution isn’t to make Scoundrels hopelessly overpowered; the solution is teaching the AI how to use them better.

    That’s often not what’s happening, though.

    And I’d like to add, that the MP crowd is ENTIRELY too picky. There should never ever be the question for example, whether to play with or without underground – OF COURSE you should play with Dwarves; it’s what the current game is.

    #203080

    AbednegoJC
    Member

    Part of the reason balance threads are done mostly by MP’ers is because thats the arena where imbalances are most likely to be ferreted out.

    And the bulk of imbalances in MP’er games will also be imbalanced in SP.

    Most Mp’ers probably also play single player. I certainly do, and the bulk of my playing is probably in singleplayer or effectively singleplay via MP team against the AI with friends. I would estimate 80% of my gametime is SP.

    So, having said that, its still only MP concerns over balance that drive me. Balance the MP arena and let the rest work itself out. Why? Because an imbalance in MP RUINS MP. And a balanced MP will largely balance SP, which is not nearly so concerned with balance anyway.

    If something is imbalanced in SP but not in MP, it does not effect the SP experience with anything like the magnitude of MP.

    So, speaking as a someone who still majorly plays SP…I say balance MP. Only. SP will work itself out and wont be harmed by this. Only helped actually IMO.

    if you need to see clearly how imbalance can ruin MP in a way that does not effect SP. just take a look at BBB’s tournament thread. Dwarves…prosepctors digging…should we ban dwarves underground? This would never even come up as an issue in SP. But MP is very sensitive to this, if one race is overpowered such that every particiapnt is forced to use it or lose…well the MP experience is just toast.

    Totally true, man. As I said, SP you can always balance with your own rules, change starting conditions, etc… but on MP you cant just say: dont dig in UG, you ugly dwarf!

    @Jolly Joker

    Actually.. I dont care about autocombat too much. Its more-less balanced and if not, you just need to take more units. But main issue is, if something is balanced on autocombat but you can abuse it in manual combat vs player. Like cheetah did. So Im really glad for this patch.

    #203099

    *Sigh* As a lurker here who rarely posts, I likely have no real right to voice my opinion

    You registered, didn’t you? Ergo you have as much right as anyone else.

    rightly or wrongly, I feel that my opinions as a single player are not respected or desired

    wrongly. I’ve said it many times before but this game is not actually very multiplayer friendly. For example, matches take a long time, there’s no auto invite, no lobby, no ladder, no random matching, no drop in/out functionality, no replay functionality, no ingame voice chat (you have to press tab and type) so you need to use 3rd party programs. To the singleplayer people who seem to have a grudge against MP, I strongly suggest you play some goddamed MP first and see how, structurally/mechanically, the game is not designed for a good mp experience.

    EDIT: and ofcourse, the biggest issue of all – simultaneous fights in multiplayer are not simultaneous. You must wait while the other players fight it out, and fights can take upto an hr for the big ones.

    It’s saving grace is that which applies to all games with a multiplayer component – matching wits against a Human.

    This game was designed from the ground up for the multiplayer game.

    A common misconception. See above. If it was designed for multiplayer, they didn’t do a very good job.

    About the Dwarves UG thing, like I said in that thread, I’m not convinced it’s wildly OP. There are *many* combinations of things that the player can leverage to make “OP,” and bear in mind that getting that extra gold is useful, but you still need to be underground (less stuff to expand towards and use) and your units still cost more than anyone else.

    I’d actually venture a guess that Goblins UG might have a better economy overall, because everything costs less, and they still get something from tunneling.

    There should never ever be the question for example, whether to play with or without underground – OF COURSE you should play with Dwarves; it’s what the current game is.

    The question that was being tentatively raised was Does playing with Dwarves UG force everyone else to do the same just to stay afloat? I’m not convinced it does, some are.

    I think other factors such as player skill and your start position will be much more influential. In any case, I think it’s one of those things that

    Ceteris paribis, starting with Dwarves underground is a huge advantage.

    But ofcourse, nothing is ever equal anyway, so it’s hard to argue.

    #203122

    Capirex
    Member

    A common misconception. See above. If it was designed for multiplayer, they didn’t do a very good job.

    Personally i think that it was designed from the start with both multiplayer and singleplayer in mind. The fact that simultaneous turns are there is already a testament to this, i don’t see many TBS games with this kind of feature.

    And i think they did a good job considering the nature of the game, a complex strategy TBS like AoW is much more difficult to adapt to multiplayer compared to a RTS game or a FPS, for example. Some genre of games are just more suited to it.

    Anyway i don’t think that’s a bad thing but a good one for the game to be designed with two different perspectives. What i wouldn’t like to see is both MP or SP being too sacrificed in favor of the other, but currently it doesn’t seem so to me.

    Part of the reason balance threads are done mostly by MP’ers is because thats the arena where imbalances are most likely to be ferreted out.

    And the bulk of imbalances in MP’er games will also be imbalanced in SP.

    Most Mp’ers probably also play single player. I certainly do, and the bulk of my playing is probably in singleplayer or effectively singleplay via MP team against the AI with friends. I would estimate 80% of my gametime is SP.

    So, having said that, its still only MP concerns over balance that drive me. Balance the MP arena and let the rest work itself out. Why? Because an imbalance in MP RUINS MP. And a balanced MP will largely balance SP, which is not nearly so concerned with balance anyway.

    If something is imbalanced in SP but not in MP, it does not effect the SP experience with anything like the magnitude of MP.

    So, speaking as a someone who still majorly plays SP…I say balance MP. Only. SP will work itself out and wont be harmed by this. Only helped actually IMO.

    if you need to see clearly how imbalance can ruin MP in a way that does not effect SP. just take a look at BBB’s tournament thread. Dwarves…prosepctors digging…should we ban dwarves underground? This would never even come up as an issue in SP. But MP is very sensitive to this, if one race is overpowered such that every particiapnt is forced to use it or lose…well the MP experience is just toast.

    I agree, with some exeptions. Due to the different nature of the experiences some SP issuer may not come out in MP, especially late game issues or AI issues, which need to be balanced separatly.

    That’s why i think that balancing only MP is not the best approach.

    Nevertheless if the feature proposed in the thread could be implemented it would be a step ahead, for certain.

    #203127

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    There should never ever be the question for example, whether to play with or without underground – OF COURSE you should play with Dwarves; it’s what the current game is.

    The question that was being tentatively raised was Does playing with Dwarves UG force everyone else to do the same just to stay afloat? I’m not convinced it does, some are.

    Apart from having not enough time to play MP anymore, this was one of the reasons I eventually stopped. You see, the thing here is, that people don’t actually want to play with Dwarves starting UG – but tentatively complain beforehand they might have to, because otherwise they might be disadvantaged.
    Also – look at the rage quitter thread.
    A lot of people play MP to demonstrate something, not because they want to have some good old fun.
    If you d the tourney – don’t discuss the rules is my advice. SET them, and if anyone starts complaining, it’s all voluntary.

    #203130

    Well we are ahead of schedule, and people need to understand the rules before we start.

    In any case, there won’t be any banning of tactics or races etc because of “imba”.

    Also, the previous system of having to alternate your classes between each match might be expanded to races as well.

    #203133

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I just read that Dwarven RG Eco 1 will be halved, and since the tourney will probably start after the patch THAT particular point shouldn’t be a problem anyway.

    #203403

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    Why pounce is imba?
    – it has no counter except of dwarf theo for mass crusaders.
    – basic irregular has it. Thats main issue. Pounce can be ok for supports, for berserkers (ofc nerfed a bit, because pounce is too strong itself) or even manticores. But when basic tigran irregular has great speed (explorer), sprint + “short ranged attack” after which he engage enemy while defended.. its imba. I tried it in few games… basically I was able to kill all players just with spamming irregulars. You cant do this with any other irregular. Its imba. Please nerf it.

    Is “imba” like samba, just danced with a lot of pouncing moves? 🙂

    Dude, you wrote like half a page. Is it so hard to spell/type imbalanced properly? This is almost as bad as “feels” or “OP” instead of Overpowered – ’cause really, OP either stands for Optimus Prime, or Original Poster, first and foremost.

    But to the matter at hand- Cheetahs are very weak, even if put to Defend after pounce, regular infanty or archers can easily wipe them out in one turn, let alone Tier 2-3 units. It is not any more imbalanced than Frostling Irregulars who can freeze enemies every turn, or Rogue Irregulars who can also sprint, backstab, and have a pretty good ranged attack.

    #203430

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    To further elaborate – I never played tournaments or against humans. I am fine with the AI. Fighting with Tigrans, and against Tigrans, I found Cheetahs to be rather fragile in battle until gold medal -they really excel after that due to Martial arts and HP increase, but even then you best watch out and not leave them alone on the front lines. I found using them more for crowd control – two cheetahs with throw net can reduce an enemy to stand still even if they cannot net him. In the next round, I would use pounce. Frankly, what they are best at – alongside Mystics – is quickly getting to the other side of the battlefield to provide support, if needed.

    Though, let’s recap the Irregulars of each race:

    Draconian Hatchling: Has a terribly weak melee attack, low HP, and an OK fire spit that’s only useful at semi-close range. IMHO the worst Irregular – you have to take them too close to the enemy to be effective, and a small breeze kills them, even. They can evolve – but lose all their medals and might end up as a Crusher or Flamer, for all your troubles. Add to the problems the pure fire ranged attack – lots of things are resistant or immune to fire. It’s only a small boon that they themselves resist fire greatly, that only saves them from Dwarf Forgepriests and other draconians (barely)
    Dwarf Prospector: Has OK defense and slightly good HP, not great melee skills, and an average phsyical ranged attack. It’s not really a great unit, though it lasts longer in melee than a Hatchling. Where it’s useful is the Tunneling ability – early on underground, this’ll net you some much-needed free gold for clearing away rubble. Also, as he levels up he eventually becomes a good siege unit too, doing extra damage to walls. The shatter strike is only ever useful if you are playing a class that has immobilizing skills.
    Goblin Untouchable: Ever since the expansion they have more HP – as much as the Hatchling – so they don’t always die to one shot. They suck in melee, but their ranged attack not only uses poison (devastating against elves and low resistance races like orcs or tigrans), but can apply a debuff that lowers morale and makes foes even more suspectible to the poison damage of other goblins. And, if moved next to the enemy – a risky move – they can further debuff them with their stench, to which other Goblins are immune. They don’t work well against dwarves, undead or other goblins, but they are basically immune to blight/poison damage, so they can be sent against enemy swarm darters or untouchables as targets.
    Frostling Ice Scaper: Has little HP and its melee attack is best used as a last resort, but where it excels is range – while no more damaging than other irregulars, it can potentially take enemies out of the game for a whole two rounds. If you want overpowered, this is it… Unlike AOWII where this hit only 15% of the time, now it has a very good chance to freeze enemies. Especially good against tigrans, draconians and orcs. With a few medals, they become invisible on snow, too! Obviously, it’s best to use them from behind raiders, though.
    Halfling Adventurer: The only Irregular with a multi-shot ranged attack, and much like the Slingers in the older games, deadly. With 35 HP it is also one of the meatiest Irregulars, even if the physical weakness compensates this. With Luck though, and careful manipulation of Morale, they are easily the best irregulars in the game. In a recent game, a remote Halfling town I had was attacked by a Bone Dragon, two Bone Collectors, a Wraith King some skeletons. I only had one Farmer and 4 Adventurers in the town – and yes, it was Evil Slaying week, so I had that, but even with that, Luck helped my Adventurers survive so far that they killed everything but the Bone Dragon and a badly damaged Bone Collector before dying. Their damage output is easily the best and with good morale, they do criticals often. Add Monster and Animal Slayer to this, and…
    High Elf Intiate: Has little HP, and average melee or ranged attack. Where she excels is the damage type – not many units have Shock resistance, save for Sorcerer units and Shock Serpents. The best part is, though, Evolve – unlike Hatchlings, you know you will be getting a support unit once you get her to gold medal.
    Human Civic Guard: the epitome of “average”, save for his higher HP compared to most. Otherwise almost the same as the Prospector. Volunteer means this is a cheap unit, though, and if you ever get to gold, First Strike means they can be more useful in melee as defenders.
    Orc Spearman: With as much HP as some Infantry units, and racially-increased melee damage, the Spearman is basically a fast melee skirmisher – using Sprint and War Cry, they can dash to reach archers and take them out fast, and against stronger enemies, can resort to their ranged attacks. Having a Shield also means you can rush them to the front line and worry less about archers.
    Tigran Cheetah: Has slightly better stats than the Spearman – and most importantly, greater speed, plus sprint. However, uniquely amongst the Irregulars, she has no ranged attack, only a 3-hex long Pounce useable only every 3 turns. We discussed how Pounce works – despite guard mode, it is a risky move and should only be used if you can thin out the enemy in the same round – otherwise, the AI will 100% surround and hack the cheetahs to death. Bleeding is a nice extra damage chance, as well as synergy with Prowlers and others.

    So all in all, I think Cheetahs are not overpowered – if anything, maybe Adventurers are, a bit. Rather than nerf Cheetahs, I’d upgrade the worst Irregulars:
    – Hatchlings should get a defense/resistance increase to make them last longer in melee, and the change that upon evolving, they keep their medals.
    – I’d add Maintenance to Prospectors, the help not just Dreadnaughts but armies with war machines.
    – Civic Guards could be armored, making them more sturdy and stand out in at least this from the others.

    #203440

    SugeBearX
    Member

    Sorry if I made a blanket statement implying that I didn’t understand the inherent problems with the game as a multiplayer experience…I do. My statements were aimed solely at in game balance issues. From release day, the developers (who I love btw) acknowledged that the unit and pacing balance of the game was based almost exclusively on a homogenous style…a fast paced multiplayer one. By their own admission the beta pool was too small and lacked diversity. This, in my opinion and in the opinion of many, resulted in a somewhat disappointing single player experience. Over time and with the expansions the experience has improved dramatically, making this my favorite game in its genre. That being said, I am against balance changes that cater to one group at the expense of another…and too many balance changes have been made to accommodate the multiplayer experience at the expense of single player.

    All I wish is that the effect of balance changes be examined from both perspectives before being implemented. Past changes have, in my opinion, been largely skewed towards multiplayer balance, resulting in a relatively ridiculous end game for those of us who play versus A.I. opposition…particularly those who turtle as a playstyle. I hope I don’t come across as having a grudge against those who play multiplayer because I truly don’t. My hope is that everyone can enjoy the game equally…however they play. 🙂

    P.S. I just wanted to add that I personally don’t play multiplayer because I have a rather serious anxiety disorder and I have been told, somewhat vehemently, that my…deliberate…playstyle is not conducive with their enjoyment of the multiplayer experience. Heh, I learned that lesson very early in a long gaming history and have largely been a single player hermit since. If there is any grudginess (If Colbert can do it so can I 🙂 ) towards multiplayer folks it’s that I feel somewhat trapped outside of a community I would very much like to be a part of but am uniquely unsuited for. Since it’s mostly my issues that cause the problem, I try really hard not to be a jackass…but sometimes…the internet… Cheers! 🙂

    #203489

    AbednegoJC
    Member

    Sorry if I made a blanket statement implying that I didn’t understand the inherent problems with the game as a multiplayer experience…

    Sorry, but your comment is really like you cannot see over. I understand you like to play “nice games” …you enjoy your single player and doesnt care about anything else. Thats how childs do.
    But this game has multiplayer also and that needs to be balanced.

    We got it in your first comment, so you dont need to repeat that. We understand, but thats all we can do with this. This is on first place multiplayer game. And thats right.

    #203513

    Sartarius
    Member

    As far as I agree with you on most statements, Abed, esp that MP should be perfectly balanced not SP for obvious reason, I strongly disagree about it is a MP game on first place. About 95% never played a MP game an never will, so single is also very important. Ofc balance should be perfect for multiplayer games mostly as I mentioned, but stating it so is not right. I also find MP games far more enjoyable than SP but still most ppl dont think that way.

    #203519

    AbednegoJC
    Member

    Well… Sartarius you are right.
    But, how many hours have those single players actually?

    I have about 1300 hours on multiplayer… how many ocassionally single players is need to take that time together?

    MP community is more important in most games, because it spread name of game and also they play muchmore, they test stuff and they are deeper in game.

    There are very few of good single players who improve game and play it a lot (I know propably only Shaithias, who is good single and pbem player, working on some mods, creating maps etc…)

    #203520

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

    With PBEM you can play everything you like, no autocombat, but against other humans, so actually, imo the balance priorities are:
    1) PBEM, because it’s the most, well, intelligent and also complete mode, since you can actually play with each and everything and each and every setting.
    2) AUTOCOMBAT, because it has a big influence on things in regular MP (but that’ not balancing, but more “improving” – if, for example, the AI doesn’t use certain powerful spells or abilities of units and those units tend to die because of that, it’s not a matter of making said unit yet more powerful, but to teach the AI to use the ability).
    For the rest, though, MP is fairly, well, misleading, because the settings regular SP is played with is VERY limited.

    SP doesn’t need separate balancing, because it’s all in those two.

    #203523

    Zaskow
    Member

    2) AUTOCOMBAT, because it has a big influence on things in regular MP (but that’ not balancing, but more “improving” – if, for example, the AI doesn’t use certain powerful spells or abilities of units and those units tend to die because of that, it’s not a matter of making said unit yet more powerful, but to teach the AI to use the ability).

    Ai in autobattles loves to make suicidal runs and attacks, ignores chance to do maximum damage (if can’t win), uses convert abilities (convert, charm, seduce) very rarely (in auto mostly, in manual battles AI uses them almost normal), makes wrong targeting.
    This aggressive gameplay hurts very much certain races in battles. Closest example – halfling. When human tends to play them more carefully and doesn’t advance with them in melee often without big advantages, AI likes to organize attacks which leads to huge losses for halflings.

    #203525

    Bouh
    Member

    Ai in autobattles loves to make suicidal runs and attacks, ignores chance to do maximum damage (if can’t win), uses convert abilities (convert, charm, seduce) very rarely (in auto mostly, in manual battles AI uses them almost normal), makes wrong targeting.

    Actualy, the AI is exactly the same between auto and manual combat. Exactly the same. So there is no difference in how she use convert abilities between the two except those you force by manualy altering the outcome of the battle.

    AI is bad at the game, that’s right though.

    #203528

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Yeah, but that’s not a property of the Halflings, but of the AI (that would need to learn another tactic when playing them).
    Playing MP with Autocombat is a completely different game than PBEM or SP, because you have a chance to win only when you KNOW the quirks of the AI, which means you need to understand what happens in AC, so you can field the forces necessary to achieve what you want to (which obviously differ from the forces you may field in SP, leading units manually).
    An example would be the Mystical difficulty structure that gives you 4 Naga mothers, 1 Feathered Serpent and 1 Glutton. Time and again I enter those with “Probable Deafeat” chances, only to win not even losing a unit.
    Obviously, in MP, entering the site with “Probable Defeat” chance would be folly with autocombat.

    So – MP with autocombat is, at the heart of it, a different game. For example, because with AC you can’t beat certain somethings (say, a Tomb with the special challenge undead offer), unless you field a certain something, it may change your whole research and building strategy.
    If that’s disadvantageous, you’ll probably start complaining about things being too weak or so – when in reality only the tactical prowess of the AI is too weak.

    #203529

    Gloweye
    Member

    Difference is significant. While I’ve used auto-combat from time to time, I’ve only recently played my first simultaneous MP, and I’m honestly amazed at how many troops the AI loses for you when clearing, and my inability to make a proper estimate of this most likely sealed my defeat.

    As in, really different between manual and auto. Like losing half an army whereas I could do the battle manual and get minor damage on 2 units.

    However, I’ve noticed a very strong performance increase when having units with Healing abilities.

    #203532

    Zaskow
    Member

    Actualy, the AI is exactly the same between auto and manual combat.

    No. AI on replays and AI in manual battle controlled by AI works different.

    #203533

    I understand you like to play “nice games” …you enjoy your single player and doesnt care about anything else. Thats how childs do.
    […]

    This is on first place multiplayer game. And thats right.

    Err…yeah, two sides, one coin it seems.

    The issue is that the MP and SP paradigms are quite different. And what works in one might not work in the other as well, but making it fit the other makes it almost useless in other first one.

    And that is where issues crop up. We have examples of rather diverse playstyles in these forums, from SP XL maps with many resources, to only using a few elite stacks to medium or smaller map MP with few resources, treasures, cities and only settler start.
    Each one favors certain elements. But an element that is balanced in one can be imbalanced in both ways in others. And that is the issue some SP players have. Balancing a game is hard, balancing a game like AoW3 well is extremely hard.
    And balancing it for the quicker, AI-heavy MP setup leads to quite some issues with the others.

    #203535

    Ravenholme
    Member

    Actualy, the AI is exactly the same between auto and manual combat.

    No. AI on replays and AI in manual battle controlled by AI works different.

    No, it really is the same AI, but your presence as a player and the fact that you inherently don’t act the same way as your own autocombat AI stand-in would force the AI ‘change’.

    The only other change that I can think of between the two is that in autocombat the AI “Defense” stance (where they wait for you to come to them) is probably eliminated, to prevent stalemates.

    #203537

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Difference is significant. While I’ve used auto-combat from time to time, I’ve only recently played my first simultaneous MP, and I’m honestly amazed at how many troops the AI loses for you when clearing, and my inability to make a proper estimate of this most likely sealed my defeat.

    As in, really different between manual and auto. Like losing half an army whereas I could do the battle manual and get minor damage on 2 units.

    However, I’ve noticed a very strong performance increase when having units with Healing abilities.

    That’s the other reason I won’t start MP (other than PBEM) – I’d have to learn something I don’t want to know. 🙂
    I’m quite interested in playing PBEM, though, which seems to be the real deal.

    #203543

    @ JJ, in pbem you still need to know how autocombat works, because you’ll be using that against other players.

    #203548

    Gloweye
    Member

    @ JJ, in pbem you still need to know how autocombat works, because you’ll be using that against other players.

    So far, I’ve done not that bad without knowing…

    I’m quite interested in playing PBEM, though, which seems to be the real deal.

    Well, I’m up for a game..

    #203554

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    @ JJ, in pbem you still need to know how autocombat works, because you’ll be using that against other players.

    Not quite sure what you mean with that. Taking advantage of “exploits”?

    I’m quite interested in playing PBEM, though, which seems to be the real deal.

    Well, I’m up for a game..

    Ok, how? I’m at GoG, have Galaxy beta installed. Should we wait for the patch? <yes, I’d say.> Should we try for a bigger game with more players?

    #203564

    Gloweye
    Member

    I’m quite interested in playing PBEM, though, which seems to be the real deal.

    Well, I’m up for a game..

    Ok, how? I’m at GoG, have Galaxy beta installed. Should we wait for the patch? <yes, I’d say.> Should we try for a bigger game with more players?

    I’m fine with waiting for the patch. I’m at GOG too, though I haven’t tried Galaxy yet. The matchmaking is by triumph though, so it doesn’t really matter where we bought our game. [EDIT: Email removed] I’ll edit my email away here once I see your next post.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 200 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.