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, 2 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 121 through 150 (of 200 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #203576

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I sent you a mail.

    #203918

    SugeBearX
    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…)

    This is precisely the childish attitude of entitlement I was talking about…Animosity and disdain for a large segment of the community that drives them away. Why don’t more single players come here to improve the game? Because you and people like you have a profoundly shitty attitude. You are unfriendly, unwelcoming, off-putting, disrespectful and frankly…a giant arsehole. Stuff your disdain and stuff your entitlement…your self importance sickens me.

    #203923

    ArcaneSeraph
    Member

    @sugebearx I find my points are often largely ignored too because I’m not well known as one of the top MP players. I’ve got 1000+ hours of experience but that doesn’t seem to matter. Your name matters more than your logic or opinion to some around here. That’s not to say everyone is like this. They aren’t. But there are a few and they are very loud. You need to have a bit of a thick skin and ignore the more outrageous posts 🙂

    The idea that balancing the game for MP doesn’t hurt or impact SP at all is ridiculous. Worse than this no one even seems to care about non-standard starting settings or large maps. It’s just as Ferrus_Animus said. Balancing for AI heavy MP has resulted in quite a few issues in the game types I play.

    There are quite a few niceties and adjustments that would make the SP gameplay experience much much better. The vast majority of players are SP players so it seems in the best interest of the devs to make that experience a quality one. I’m hoping that once modding tools and, if I get my wish, editable random maps come out we can fix a lot of them ourselves.

    #203930

    Stormwind
    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”?

    In PBEM your battles against the AI is (or atleast it can be) manual battle. (unless the AI starts the battle!).

    However, your battles against other players are ALWAYS auto battle. So this is what BBB means when he says you will need to learn how auto battle works. In particular, how much of an advantage you need to be successful, how having units with different speeds affect results, etc etc. Experience does help.

    #203931

    For the record, there was no such admission about the beta. It was admitted that most players were veterans who could and chose to beat the ai on even the largest maps within 80-100 turns at the most. It was not known that lots of people wanted to play really long slow maps. After the release, changes were made in that direction that also let the game play well within the originally designed bounds.

    And when you put a lot of ideas into a place, and they involve work, most of them will get turned down. Ayenara (tournament winner) was in favor of armored gryphon’s, and that got squished. I’ve wanted fairy dragons since before I was in the beta, and have yet to hear dragon laughter. Jomungur wanted short bow on high elf hunters, but that didn’t happen.

    I wanted to have dwelling starts, and to redo the ad’s healing (which people hated). It was only when Fen, myself, and many people on the humongous ad forum asked that stuff got changed for the horned god.

    And if tigrans have been over nerfed, they can always be adjusted back a little. Happens all the time.

    #203932

    Stormwind
    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…)

    This is precisely the childish attitude of entitlement I was talking about…Animosity and disdain for a large segment of the community that drives them away. Why don’t more single players come here to improve the game? Because you and people like you have a profoundly shitty attitude. You are unfriendly, unwelcoming, off-putting, disrespectful and frankly…a giant arsehole. Stuff your disdain and stuff your entitlement…your self importance sickens me.

    Well, maybe the first step in being taken seriously is not being so over the top insulting. Your list of faults and insults is longer then the post you are critiquing. Its a rage storm.

    @sugebearx I find my points are often largely ignored too because I’m not well known as one of the top MP players. I’ve got 1000+ hours of experience but that doesn’t seem to matter. Your name matters more than your logic or opinion to some around here. That’s not to say everyone is like this. They aren’t. But there are a few and they are very loud. You need to have a bit of a thick skin and ignore the more outrageous posts :)

    The idea that balancing the game for MP doesn’t hurt or impact SP at all is ridiculous. Worse than this no one even seems to care about non-standard starting settings or large maps. It’s just as Ferrus_Animus said. Balancing for AI heavy MP has resulted in quite a few issues in the game types I play.

    There are quite a few niceties and adjustments that would make the SP gameplay experience much much better. The vast majority of players are SP players so it seems in the best interest of the devs to make that experience a quality one. I’m hoping that once modding tools and, if I get my wish, editable random maps come out we can fix a lot of them ourselves.

    You really cannot balance games like this in SP. What if I am playing against squire, and you are playing against cheating emperor? Your typical resource deprivation spell that might drive squire to his knees does not phase emperor. So how do we balance such a spell? Should it be more powerful, or less? Well obviously less, right, since it makes my games against squire too easy! Nerf it!

    Someone mentioned balancing the game towards a turtle playstyle. This is a strategy game, you win by having a strategy, no one gauruntees all strategies will work. If they did, it wouldn’t be much of a strategy game. If all chess openings were as good as any other, no one would bother learning chess opening strategy. They wouldnt even use the word “strategy”.

    And if SP’ers outnumber MP’ers, then why are you guys complaining about being hounded and harrassed? Maybe most SP’ers are happy, and its just a couple of you upset. I am mostly SP too, and if they balance towards MP I am happy with it. I think its the best possible arena to balance a game like this in. It cannot be balanced in all settings against all AI levels and accomodating all possible playstyles.

    #203944

    You really cannot balance games like this in SP…

    The issue isn’t using the shifting game conditions of SP as a yardstick, but that somehow the races extreme conditions of most MP are seen as that measuring tool.

    And the simple fact that all kinds of MP involve autocombat to a degree and SP might not shifts results a ton already.
    The problem isn’t that balancing for MP is bad, but balancing for MP leads to tunnel vision with many SP aspects outside of the field of view.
    And given how some changes recently happened because of the, people who prefer a different experience get it lessened.

    And the idea that the silent majority agrees with anything is as laughably simple as bad.

    #203946

    esvath
    Member

    And if SP’ers outnumber MP’ers, then why are you guys complaining about being hounded and harrassed? Maybe most SP’ers are happy, and its just a couple of you upset. I am mostly SP too, and if they balance towards MP I am happy with it. I think its the best possible arena to balance a game like this in. It cannot be balanced in all settings against all AI levels and accomodating all possible playstyles.

    It is precisely because of this (I feel it too):

    @sugebearx I find my points are often largely ignored too because I’m not well known as one of the top MP players. I’ve got 1000+ hours of experience but that doesn’t seem to matter. Your name matters more than your logic or opinion to some around here. That’s not to say everyone is like this. They aren’t. But there are a few and they are very loud. You need to have a bit of a thick skin and ignore the more outrageous posts 🙂

    #203947

    ArcaneSeraph
    Member

    You really cannot balance games like this in SP. What if I am playing against squire, and you are playing against cheating emperor? Your typical resource deprivation spell that might drive squire to his knees does not phase emperor. So how do we balance such a spell? Should it be more powerful, or less? Well obviously less, right, since it makes my games against squire too easy! Nerf it!

    This is difficulty. Not balance. The comparable condition in MP is when a new player can’t win against a veteran and complains something should be nerfed. Which does indeed occur all the time.

    There have been many strategy games balanced for single player experience. Civ 5 is a good example.

    Someone mentioned balancing the game towards a turtle playstyle. This is a strategy game, you win by having a strategy, no one gauruntees all strategies will work. If they did, it wouldn’t be much of a strategy game. If all chess openings were as good as any other, no one would bother learning chess opening strategy. They wouldnt even use the word “strategy”.

    This is true. The devs decide at some point to implement various classes and such and thus strategies. Each strategy they feel is valid should be at least somewhat reasonably effective compared to others. This doesn’t really again have anything to do with SP or MP though IMO.

    And if SP’ers outnumber MP’ers, then why are you guys complaining about being hounded and harrassed? Maybe most SP’ers are happy, and its just a couple of you upset. I am mostly SP too, and if they balance towards MP I am happy with it. I think its the best possible arena to balance a game like this in. It cannot be balanced in all settings against all AI levels and accomodating all possible playstyles.

    It’s not a big secret that almost all the discussions around here about balance and gameplay revolve around MP. Most of them will include statements such as “oh you play SP so that doesn’t matter” or “please include your play settings because chances are you can fix your issue by altering those settings.” And that’s the problem. People think you can fix SP problems by simply altering your settings or playing MP.

    There is so much of the game that MP never encounters. Limiting the balance and gameplay considerations to only that limited environment results in a poorer game than otherwise would be possible. There are many adjustments that can be made to improve gameplay that won’t affect MP at all yet they aren’t contemplated as they weren’t detected during MP games.

    I wasn’t really trying to say I (or anyone else) is being hounded or harassed. I just think that many opinions are just ignored as they are to do with non standard MP settings or as someone so politely put it: “child” mode.

    I mean wouldn’t most SP players enjoy a harder game? Or a game where you could have various advanced starts and not totally destroy the balance of the classes? In many ways playing SP feels kind of silly. I can do almost anything and still win. What’s the possible strategy in that? It gets quickly boring that way. Yet the options that could present a harder or more interesting late game experience are never touched in MP so they are never to be balanced.

    #203979

    Fenraellis
    Member

    Jomungur wanted short bow on high elf hunters

    Hey, now, I’ve longed for the glory days of +6 total Ranged strength on the simple Shortbow-using Hunters in pre-release Beta(of ALL races). Sure, less damage than a Longbow when ranged penalty was a factor, but due to their high movement, and the fact that combat often gets to close quarters pretty fast anyway, they still had their definite value as well.

    Besides, it makes more sense for the highly mobile hunters, even Elven ones, to eschew full size Longbows, for more transportable hunting bows. Recurve, and the like.

    #203989

    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”?

    In PBEM your battles against the AI is (or atleast it can be) manual battle. (unless the AI starts the battle!).

    However, your battles against other players are ALWAYS auto battle. So this is what BBB means when he says you will need to learn how auto battle works. In particular, how much of an advantage you need to be successful, how having units with different speeds affect results, etc etc. Experience does help.

    Didn’t think of that (pvp autocombat makes sense in PBEM games) – so you need indeed all gaming experiences to balance things.

    #203999

    Capirex
    Member

    I mean wouldn’t most SP players enjoy a harder game? Or a game where you could have various advanced starts and not totally destroy the balance of the classes? In many ways playing SP feels kind of silly. I can do almost anything and still win. What’s the possible strategy in that? It gets quickly boring that way. Yet the options that could present a harder or more interesting late game experience are never touched in MP so they are never to be balanced.

    I couldn’t agree more, and this is actually why i think that balancing toward both MP and SP is the best approach, in different aspects of the game of corse.

    #204029

    I’m one who says post your settings, and the intent isn’t to *fix* as such, it’s to understand where the person is coming from, precisely because there are so many settings.

    For better or worse, the setting that appears most balanced is medium map default with 4 players, on Lord.

    That seems to be the closest thing to a default setting. It may not be ideal but something has to be the baseline, and that is what we have. That is why I always want to know the setting, as, simply put some settings stress this default more than others. For example, small map with 8 players battle star, means you can’t really comment on economy settings.

    That doesn’t belittle or marginalise other settings, and I often like to switch things up, but IF you are going to discuss balance, you need to have this baseline in mind, even if you don’t necessarily like it.

    And somehow people have missed that the main effort and recent patches has been all about singleplayer.

    #204030

    And in any case, we should really be asking if setting c is fun, and if not why not, and balance is just a part of what makes the experience fun.

    #204148

    SugeBearX
    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…)

    This is precisely the childish attitude of entitlement I was talking about…Animosity and disdain for a large segment of the community that drives them away. Why don’t more single players come here to improve the game? Because you and people like you have a profoundly shitty attitude. You are unfriendly, unwelcoming, off-putting, disrespectful and frankly…a giant arsehole. Stuff your disdain and stuff your entitlement…your self importance sickens me.

    Well, maybe the first step in being taken seriously is not being so over the top insulting. Your list of faults and insults is longer then the post you are critiquing. Its a rage storm.

    Don’t presume to lecture me. If he want’s to defend himself, let him do it. Yay! My response was shorter than yours…and grammatically correct as well! (Then=Than). FTW! 🙂

    #204154

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Esadbaf, whoever you are, and wherever you just came from, welcome!

    Awesome post!

    Agreed. His post itself was, coincidentally, a model of balance.

    *Funny GIF*

    LOL, where did you get that GIF? And what’s the context?

    #204156

    Epaminondas
    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.

    You echo sentiments I have voiced a long time. Cheers.

    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.

    I don’t quite agree with this view, and this view seems to be the dominant one in the MP player community.

    Instead, I feel that MP balance and SP balance can, in may cases, be fundamentally different. As a result, MP oriented challenges can fundamentally ruin SP games for some, and it has for myself and many others. The main reason is that the MP and SP games can be fundamentally different in nature.

    Now, I grant you that MP and SP balance can be roughly the same for those MP players who claim to play a lot of SP games, IF their SP games are similar in structure to MP games: That is, if they are relatively short games involving small or medium maps. Things are night and day different, however, if one plays long, massive XL games that frequently go over 200 or more turns. I have posted extensively about these games, and the incongruities caused by balancing exclusively for short games. Sure, stuff like Disintegrate and Hellfire is not going to completely dominate the game in an OP way in a small map game; heck, you may not even research them in most games. But when one side easily has 300 or more CPs, you can spam spells that were not designed to be spammed and win the game exclusively on that basis alone. And other problems are too multiple to mention (and I’ve done a cursory job elsewhere).

    In short, your claim would have merit in something like an RTS game, where the game type has less variation and MP and SP is structured in a similar way, with MP games forcing you to face opponents who are merely being better and more “reactive.” But in games like AoW 3, the entire game parameter are so different between SP and MP that you are almost playing two different genres of games.

    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.

    I am sure part of the problem is language fluency, but this comes across as extremely rude and dismissive, exactly as SugeBear said about some “elite” MP players on this forum.

    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.

    I disagree with this claim in its entirety, in every aspect.

    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…)

    This is precisely the childish attitude of entitlement I was talking about…Animosity and disdain for a large segment of the community that drives them away. Why don’t more single players come here to improve the game? Because you and people like you have a profoundly shitty attitude. You are unfriendly, unwelcoming, off-putting, disrespectful and frankly…a giant arsehole. Stuff your disdain and stuff your entitlement…your self importance sickens me.

    Indeed. Still, he’s a terrible one, and few are this bad here.

    @sugebearx I find my points are often largely ignored too because I’m not well known as one of the top MP players. I’ve got 1000+ hours of experience but that doesn’t seem to matter. Your name matters more than your logic or opinion to some around here. That’s not to say everyone is like this. They aren’t. But there are a few and they are very loud. You need to have a bit of a thick skin and ignore the more outrageous posts :)

    I’ve got over 2000 on one machine alone, and nobody takes me seriously either. But that’s true of any forum, or any human community: It’s always the image rather than substance, popularity rather than merit, glit rather than gold, that matter. (Not saying I am really a great player or even all that knowledgeable about the game; still, I am a veteran of many games of this genre, and there are some specialized areas of even this game that I think I know pretty well, which I feel gets shafted nonetheless).

    The idea that balancing the game for MP doesn’t hurt or impact SP at all is ridiculous. Worse than this no one even seems to care about non-standard starting settings or large maps. It’s just as Ferrus_Animus said. Balancing for AI heavy MP has resulted in quite a few issues in the game types I play.

    Totally agree; and I posted my thoughts on this post, a bit above.

    #204160

    Epaminondas
    Member

    I’ve wanted fairy dragons since before I was in the beta, and have yet to hear dragon laughter. Jomungur wanted short bow on high elf hunters, but that didn’t happen.

    This omission is something I’ve never understood. Fairy Dragon is an old standby, so we are not dealing with introducing something radically new. It fits with the fairy dwelling logically. So why was it omitted in the first place? Sure, inclusion of the unit is work, but it is just one unit. As is, I believe the fairy dwelling is the only dwelling lacking a T4, and it looks a bit incongruous in that way.

    And if SP’ers outnumber MP’ers, then why are you guys complaining about being hounded and harrassed?

    Are you presuming majorities are always powerful and get their way? That has hardly been the case historically, or the phrase “the silent majority” would never have entered the lexicon. Throughout history aggressive, loud minorities have often driven (some would say “hijacked”) the agenda in many settings.

    I think its the best possible arena to balance a game like this in. It cannot be balanced in all settings against all AI levels and accomodating all possible playstyles.

    After having shot my proverbial load against a balancing mechanism that is exclusively oriented toward MP play, I will concede this much:

    IF there has to be an either/or choice that has to be made between balancing for MP v. SP, I agree that it is more rational to balance for MP in general. So I am not asking this game to be balanced toward SP; and I am not aware of any SP players who make such arguments. Instead, my position is that WHEN there is a way to incorporate SP concerns without damaging MP balance overmuch, SP concerns should be accommodated.

    I will give you one often cited examples: Probably the biggest issue with SP players who play XL games might be CP glut resulting in the possibility of spamming powerful end game spells in a way that render them OP. Various solutions have been proposed by SP players, and many of them have little impact on MP play. Why not consider them if this is such a serious problem that plagues so many XL map players? For instance, would it hurt MP play if end game battlefield nukes would have an ascending spam cost penalty (say, fifty percent cost per every spam)? How many MP players spam Hellfire anyways?

    The problem isn’t that balancing for MP is bad, but balancing for MP leads to tunnel vision with many SP aspects outside of the field of view.

    Pithy and to the point.

    It’s not a big secret that almost all the discussions around here about balance and gameplay revolve around MP. Most of them will include statements such as “oh you play SP so that doesn’t matter” or “please include your play settings because chances are you can fix your issue by altering those settings.” And that’s the problem. People think you can fix SP problems by simply altering your settings or playing MP.

    Indeed; in addition to the rude and inarticulate bleatings of this thread’s OP here, we have this recent gem from a far more civilized and articulate (and usually very friendly and helpful) beta tester:

    “You don’t have any of the top Theo mp players on your side, so I’m not really seeing any legitimate grounds for a change. “

    There is so much of the game that MP never encounters. Limiting the balance and gameplay considerations to only that limited environment results in a poorer game than otherwise would be possible. There are many adjustments that can be made to improve gameplay that won’t affect MP at all yet they aren’t contemplated as they weren’t detected during MP games.

    Far more eloquent than what I can muster.

    #204187

    Gloweye
    Member

    For instance, would it hurt MP play if end game battlefield nukes would have an ascending spam cost penalty (say, fifty percent cost per every spam)? How many MP players spam Hellfire anyways?

    Because it wouldn’t be just Hellfire in this case. Have you tried a strat yet? CP is going down the drain pretty hard, and the strategy of spamming it is crap when fighting a broad front war.

    No, it wouldn’t affect MP (I think), but it would my version of SP.

    I consider myself mostly a SP player, but I’m just a bit more aggressive than a couple of people here. My longest game yet was some 120-ish turns.

    we have this recent gem from a far more civilized and articulate (and usually very friendly and helpful) beta tester:

    “You don’t have any of the top Theo mp players on your side, so I’m not really seeing any legitimate grounds for a change. “

    Might I ask who? Don’t remember that one…and I principally don’t agree. There are often weird things in the game that we more experienced players(the “we” that includes everyone here with above 40 hours of gameplay) are aware of and used to, and that take a 4-hour playing record guy to point out. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong. That said, if it’s more balance oriented, having a good Theo player on your side would help, though it can’t be seen as required for you to be right.

    In general, I think MP can be useful for the balance side of the entire game. MP players are far more likely to find OP/cheese strats that are in need of some Dev attention, simply because their margin is less when they play, and the really need all the help they can get. Playing SP, I often can compensate for strong AI stacks or crappy strategic play by fighting the Tactical Combat in such a way that I can compensate. MP players don’t have that luxury.

    #204202

    vyolin
    Member

    For better or worse, the setting that appears most balanced is medium map default with 4 players, on Lord.

    That seems to be the closest thing to a default setting. It may not be ideal but something has to be the baseline, and that is what we have.

    I think BBB’s point needs additional stressing: We should really agree on a baseline setting – plus some range – and discuss balance for this setting only. Otherwise any discussion runs the risk of becoming the futile endeavour most them actually are.
    Additionally, we should agree on a set of mechanics that differ – in itself, in usage, in viability, etc – between SP and MP, and agree on whether this set should be ignored for balance discussion, if either the SP or MP aspect of it, or both should be taken into account.

    And in any case, we should really be asking if setting c is fun, and if not why not, and balance is just a part of what makes the experience fun.

    Although I concur in general, I think concentrating on whether any setting, strategy, etc is viable and fair, should come first, due to the fact it being, well, more viable.
    Fun is highly subjective, and discussions about it – if threads about stun and luck mechanics are any indication – utterly pointless.
    In most cases, something has to be at least minimally viable and fair to be fun consistently for all parties involved. Looking at you, stun.

    #204207

    Gloweye
    Member

    I think BBB’s point needs additional stressing: We should really agree on a baseline setting – plus some range – and discuss balance for this setting only. Otherwise any discussion runs the risk of becoming the futile endeavour most them actually are.
    Additionally, we should agree on a set of mechanics that differ – in itself, in usage, in viability, etc – between SP and MP, and agree on whether this set should be ignored for balance discussion, if either the SP or MP aspect of it, or both should be taken into account.

    Disagree – while a basic form like BBB mentioned is a good thing, there’s no reason for excluding all other settings when discussing balance. While IMO some setting are more important than others, if a certain uncommon setting can be balanced better while not negatively impacting others, there’s no reason not to do it. If the impact to the “default” setting is sufficiently minor, it’s not a problem either.

    #204215

    I never said exclude anything Gloweye, I said the baseline needs to be considered.

    #204217

    Sure, stuff like Disintegrate and Hellfire is not going to completely dominate the game in an OP way in a small map game; heck, you may not even research them in most games. But when one side easily has 300 or more CPs, you can spam spells that were not designed to be spammed and win the game exclusively on that basis alone.

    As you stress this point I feel I should voice disagreement. That might be an issue that combines with your playstyle. But IME CP rise slower than the number of targets in most SP settings. So while those spells can now wipe out more units and win more battles with more CP, there are now even more armies that stay unharmed.
    As you play it you only have a few hardcore elite armies and every loss hurts. But try a goblin swarm strategy for example and you will see AI Disintegrate as the AI wasting CP.
    That is what makes these discussions so difficult, and one reason in particular your opinions are taken with a bit of salt. Playstyle and setting play a huge role, especially on bigger maps.
    Similarly an MP setting with few resources, few indeps, small map and settler start will deliver vastly different than medium map, average resources, average indeps and town start.
    And frankly I think many MP players forget this too.

    #204228

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Because it wouldn’t be just Hellfire in this case.

    I think I implied that I would limit the ascending cost mechanism to a very few set of powerful, endgame spells. So we are talking only stuff like Hellfire, Earthquake, Chaos Rift, Disintegrate, etc.

    Have you tried a strat yet?

    Huh? I am confused.

    Might I ask who?

    I don’t want to name names, because the culprit is one of my favorite posters (and certainly one of my favorite beta tester), and I don’t want to press him to a corner any more than I already did (albeit in momentary frustration). But it would have been hard to miss this assertion and the ruckus surrounding it if you followed one of the more prominent threads in the balance forum in the last few days.

    As you stress this point I feel I should voice disagreement. That might be an issue that combines with your playstyle. But IME CP rise slower than the number of targets in most SP settings. So while those spells can now wipe out more units and win more battles with more CP, there are now even more armies that stay unharmed.
    As you play it you only have a few hardcore elite armies and every loss hurts. But try a goblin swarm strategy for example and you will see AI Disintegrate as the AI wasting CP.

    Of course, my playstyle makes some contribution to my issues. I have never completely rejected such claims in whole. But a few counterpoints. First, some late game issues with CP glut and OP spells are actually mitigated by my playstyle, I think. Second, there is the simple empirical fact that problems associated with spamming OP spells with XL map setting has been pointed out by many XL game players, not just me. In fact, even BBB, who had previously discounted that as a potential issue and could not imitially believe that it was possible to acquire 300 or 400 more CP in one game changed his views once he played a long, grinding XL map session.

    One more rather ancillary point, not necessarily addressed to you alone: XL map is not played only by SP players. I play XL map games (though mainly L map games) with a close friend; and I know I am not the only one since people have posted also about playing XL map MP games with their family members and close friends. It is hard to imagine doing so online with strangers, and even folks who are no time online “gaming” friends who are technically not strangers. It’s entirely different when you talk about folks whom you spend an inrodinate amount of time with in RL.

    #204232

    @ Epa, it may indeed be possible but I maintain that to get those kind of numbers you are milking the game.

    You yourself admit those are hardly standard settings, so how does it follow that the game should be ‘balanced ‘ around those?

    Yes things could possibly be made more fun but consider that the new victory condition is basically tailor made for longer single player games.

    I smashed our several xl necromancer games in the beta and the most cp I had was 130, and more than a bit came from captured Thrones.

    @ Gloweye, Epa is withholding the name for some strange reason. Very contradictory, to highlight someone’s comments and make a big deal of them and then refuse the name.

    It was Chrys in any case.

    @ Epa, I think you would have better luck suggesting solid changes, or even specific game.modes, that cater to what you want instead of crusading against the Base game.

    Imho the base game is pretty damned good, and you should alter the setting knowing full well What those effects are and taking that into account, rather than arguing for the Base to keep being changed.

    Hell, for the tournament I’m proposing adjustments to the Base specifically to engender more.entertaining matches.

    Ultimately, best option is to.open up the options Imho so you can tailor the game experience yourself.

    I’m now going to excuse myself from this thread as the original post is now moot and there’s a distinct dearth of respect and consideration.

    #204249

    Epaminondas
    Member

    @ Epa, it may indeed be possible but I maintain that to get those kind of numbers you are milking the game.

    300 CP plus is not at all unusual for XL map games, and you do not need to play a deliberately slow game to level your Champions the way I do to get those CP numbers. Once again, plenty of folks have posted numbers even far exceeding the 300 CP number I posted on this thread. For instance, GeorgiSR, who actually disagrees with me a lot on curbing these end game spells, has posted about a game where he had over 500 (!!!) CP in what appears to be a “normal” XL game he played.

    You yourself admit those are hardly standard settings, so how does it follow that the game should be ‘balanced ‘ around those?

    To the first part of that sentence: The more I read about games that people play, the more I am persuaded that 1) lots of people play XL map games; and 2) many of those who do so play games that lasts as long or even longer (this may be the most extreme example, but Shaithias [sp?] says he routinely plays games lasting over 500 turns, and I’ve not remotely reached games that length; in fact, my longest games are barely over half of that in length.

    To the second part of that sentence, I’ve never ever argued that the game should be balanced around XL maps. Please do not put words into my mouth, though habits are hard to break. What I have said is, including on this very thread, that balancing should incorporate concerns of XL map players when doing so does not overburden the rest.

    I smashed our several xl necromancer games in the beta and the most cp I had was 130, and more than a bit came from captured Thrones.

    I think 130 CP at victory point, assuming you had 7 AIs at Emperor, is an outlier for XL maps. Either you are amazing, or your settings were perhaps unusual for XL maps and fostered faster gameplay.

    @ Gloweye, Epa is withholding the name for some strange reason. Very contradictory, to highlight someone’s comments and make a big deal of them and then refuse the name.

    No other reason than the one I gave: I like the poster, and I don’t want to press him further into a corner than I already had done when that statement was originally made.

    But regardless of what I feel personally about him, the statement was egregiously wrong, and I think emblematic of the attitude of his circle, a circle whose worst exemplar may be the OP of this thread. That’s why I quoted it on this thread.

    @ Epa, I think you would have better luck suggesting solid changes, or even specific game.modes, that cater to what you want instead of crusading against the Base game.

    Imho the base game is pretty damned good, and you should alter the setting knowing full well What those effects are and taking that into account, rather than arguing for the Base to keep being changed.

    This tired run around yet again.

    Look, it seems like you dislike me a lot (perhaps with some justification), and you want to get rid of me from this forum (or marginalize me) with the following tactic: 1) You totally distort my argument, 2) claim that I represent not only a small minority but a “unique” or “distinctive” case of one; and hence 3) my views are utterly irrelevant to anything.

    But the fact of the matter is that 1) in every thread you (if sometimes only slightly) distort what I say to make me look far worse; and 2) overlook the fact that many others post the same findings or even more extreme findings (I already said GeorgiSR said he had 500 CPs in one XL map game, a higher number than I have ever achieved; Shaiathias also play games that are twice as long as my games; and a few other people have posted about playing with Champion units with over 300 HPs, including one who said he had even racial Supports with over 300 HPs, which I have not yet done, I believe); and 3) always ignore the fact that others post similar things and attempt to isolate me as one raving lunatic.

    I find all of this highly offensive obviously, just as much as what you feel is my misrepresentation of the beta tester group.

    Regardless, so is your point ultimately that all those who play XL map games on slow setting leave the game? Or perhaps only those who are not content to remain quiet but wants to influence the course of the development of the game to some degree, like myself?

    #204253

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Ultimately, best option is to.open up the options Imho so you can tailor the game experience yourself.

    Well, sure. If there were modding tools here, I’d only spend time here to learn and ask questions about gameplay, not opine about balance, etc. But there isn’t yet, and hence we depend on the devs to help us.

    I’m now going to excuse myself from this thread as the original post is now moot and there’s a distinct dearth of respect and consideration.

    And I note most of the rudeness on this thread was initiated by the OP, whom I suspect you do not call out, precisely because he is a member of your cherished circle and a consumer of your product (loosely speaking, of course).

    Yes, I will stop making (what you deem) inaccurate blanket statements about the beta testers or your cabal if you stop making inaccurate blanket statements about me.

    #204262

    Gloweye
    Member

    I never said exclude anything Gloweye, I said the baseline needs to be considered.

    You didn’t – @vyolin did. And that’s basically against anything I (and I believe you) think about game balance, while using your words to support his claim.

    Gloweye wrote:
    Have you tried a strat yet?
    Huh? I am confused.

    The Hellfire strat – you once said you were gonna try it (someday). I think you’ll find that it’s not that good as you sometimes seem to believe.

    As for the CP argument, if you’re playing slightly slower than BBB normally does, which means somewhere about my expansion speed(which is still faster than yours, Epi), it’s not that hard to get some 400 – ish CP, last time I had that I decided it wasn’t worth getting more though. Anyway, Necro can’t really do it – it depends on you building a Grand Palance in basically every city, and an aggressive Necro doesn’t have the money due to the upkeep of all his Ghouls. Let alone a Necro who got Age of Death online on an XL map. All other classes can though, since all backline cities can just build the entire chain, because you’re building troops a little more to the front because of travel time reasons, and you’re swimming in cash anyway since you’ve got a secure back land, and never need more troops than what’s required to guard the N-S axis of the map, plus any offensive forces.

    #204269

    Epaminondas
    Member

    As for the CP argument, if you’re playing slightly slower than BBB normally does, which means somewhere about my expansion speed(which is still faster than yours, Epi), it’s not that hard to get some 400 – ish CP, last time I had that I decided it wasn’t worth getting more though.

    There you go. Thanks for the empirical confirmation, not that it was ever needed when many have supplied. You say 400 CPs are normal in your settings. Yet BBB essentially called me a liar when I quoted 300 CPs a long time ago and even went as far as to claim that such numbers were not even possible. He then tried a longer (for him) XL map game and now apparently says it is “possible” but requires essentially my “unique,” “distinctive” (his two favorite phrases to describe my playstyle), or singular gameplay. So I guess you are a “unique” player “milking the game” in a way totally unintended as well.

    This is why I find debating him so frustrating and maddening. First, as I said, he totally distorts what I said to the point where I am spending (wasting?) most of my debate with him on correcting his numerous inaccurate distortions about what I said, rather than advancing the substantive differences in the dialogue. As usual, on this very thread, I specifically said I DO NOT want the game balanced on XL SP games, but only that concerns of such players accommodated WHEN THEY DO NOT OVERBURDEN the rest of the playstyle. Yet, he beins and ends with the premise that I want to rebalance the game on the basis of my “unique” XL map style. Second, he keeps trying to dismiss me by saying my playstyle is one that is played essentially by one player out of 350,000 or so people who purchased the game (based on Tibbles’ numbers for Steam users) and is wholly irrelevant to anything. Yet, you and others continually post numbers that either confirm my numbers or numbers that even far exceed my numbers, and he ignores them altogether and say I am just “unique.”

    What’s the point of arguing with such deliberate refusal to engage with your opponent in a fair manner?

    #204274

    Epaminondas
    Member

    <

    As for the CP argument, if you’re playing slightly slower than BBB normally does, which means somewhere about my expansion speed(which is still faster than yours, Epi), it’s not that hard to get some 400 – ish CP, last time I had that I decided it wasn’t worth getting more though.

    By the way, this problem will now be great exacerbated post EL and post UG patch.

    With some of the new racial upgrades plus a greatly expanded UG, there could easily be 50 percent more available CPs than before. So achieving 700 plus should not be an issue. Heck, if you go Elf racial economic upgrade, achieving 1000 plus might be possible in a game GeorgiSR played, with UG fully active.

Viewing 30 posts - 121 through 150 (of 200 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.