The danger of listening to the same few "exploiters" here on the forum

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 The danger of listening to the same few "exploiters" here on the forum

This topic contains 66 replies, has 42 voices, and was last updated by  Fenraellis 8 years ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 67 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #86218

    jpinard
    Member

    This post is being written in regard to the positive responses I received here:
    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/those-campaign-level-caps/

    I’m seeing a lot of changes that are hurting balance for a great many people (maybe the vast majority) who do not exploit the current systems. There are a few people here on the forum, that post a lot as they obviously put a lot of time into the game and their playstyle is “kick the AI in the groin in the first few turns and cripple them for the rest of the game”. They put all their eggs in one basket – massive scouting, find the not yet beefed AI, and then take him out. The rest of the game is a breeze since the AI is either incapacitated in a campaign game, or critically nerfed from losing their leader for 3 turns in an Random Map Scenario. Furthermore they tweak “min/max” their heroes so they have singular roles and combine them to make an ultra powerful stacks in the campaign, on top of that memorize maps to make the play easier.

    You’ve also got the people who exploit the leveling system with their Hero’s. They “stun” and then needle a paltry enemy for 100 turns to make their Hero level up super fast. Because of all of this, Triumph is not given the time to adequately fix the issues, and in some cases are tilting development to address the exploiters playstyle while hurting the majority of us who don’t play this way and who don’t want to play that way. Instead of what we have in the latest beta patch, the best way to deal with this particular example is to cap the # of levels a Hero make get in battle – not in the entire campaign. Otherwise, if we wanted to play a Hero-centric version of the game – we won’t be able to – they are too weak and vulnerable to use in battle vs. other units. I’m sure this is not what the developers intended, otherwise we wouldn’t have the battlefield leadership bonus’s.

    Some changes are also have a negative effect on gameplay which I’m seeing in the campaign. For those of us that like to play the game as designed… build your core cities, expand out from the center, later engage a strong enemy… we’ve now lost that. On the normal difficulty level in the Elven Campaign the only way to win now, is to go the “exploiter” route: Min/max your Hero, stack all your hero’s together, throw all your eggs into a basket to cut the AI’s legs off in the first 10 turns, save scum to get the results you want – especially for “Charm”…

    In essence. This is bad for everyone else that does not want to play an exploitative game. It limits our options – it limits the way we can play. A 4x game with only a single path to victory is not good.

    The campaigns (which are fantastic – everyone should play them!) were originally written and balanced based on the game’s core release. With each patch, the campaign has gotten increasingly difficult (if nearly impossible in latter scenarios) if you don’t want play as an insanely aggressive, exploitative player who has memorized everything. A few examples:

    * The new Hero level cap for Normal and Lower difficulty levels is awful. The ONLY way I was able to win Scenario 5 was to keep all level 20 my Hero’s together. And since I didn’t min/max them ie. have one Hero just for spell-casting who cannot do any fighting at all, one hero that is ONLY ranged damage, one hero who is ONLY melee fighter etc.. they still got killed all the time. I had to do a lot of save-scumming and backtracking when the AI would surprise an important stack that couldn’t hold up.

    * There are some people complaining here about Hero’s being overpowered. Mine have been level 20 for 4 campaign missions and I can barely keep them alive. So the idea to make Hero’s less powerful is going to hurt every player who uses Hero’s in a utilitarian role. There are people who’ve complained there’s nothing to give Hero’s after level 15 which is pure insanity. There is so much left over at level 20 that we desperately need a level 25 cap. But once again, the few that min/max and have the loudest, most repetitive voice on the forums are pushing the entire discussion – waylaying the core group of players by playing a game of Excel instead of Age of Wonders.

    * Elven Mission scenario 6 – I can’t even take over one of the Mythical vaults with a fantastic stack of 6 which includes 2 level 20 heroes, 1 level 5 hero, a Horned God, and a Silver medal Elf Initiate. Why? These were all balanced based on the version of the game that got released. In the meantime mana has been decimated so early in the game that mana based spell-casters are almost useless (there’s not enough mana to actually cast spells and keep global ones going and build your cities). You can’t use the Horned God to attack with, since he then loses his ability the next turn to use his electric bolt. Now I “could” win with quick-battle but I like to play every battle myself and once again we should not have to resort to quick-battles because the game has been adjusted too far to compensate for exploits.

    * The mana system did need to be adjusted, but the adjustment should have looked at how mid/late game mana gets out of control while not hurting early games where some players never have enough. In the case where mana is easily used to bribe cities, then the change should be to alter the diplomacy model, not kill spellcasters early game.

    ————————————————

    What we need here are balance and time. Pretty much the people who take the time to post the most, are those that have learned how to exploit the game system. While those absolutely need to be addressed, they can’t be done based on the exploiters own personal beliefs because this means only one playstyle will be possible: “Super Aggressive Offense”. We need more rounded discussion so normal players get just as much of the updates as someone who’s got a PhD in Chess algorithms.

    I also firmly believe that the more options we have when we start a game, that this will fix most of the issues people have. For those that like to rush the AI in the first 10 turns, then an option to start a game where the AI has a gold/mana bonus (and soldier stack) early that tapers off as the game progresses would be a great option (next post):

    #86221

    jpinard
    Member

    As mentioned above, a box that you can check or leave unchecked when you start a custom game would have the following results (for those that want it):

    [x] Early Game Anti-AI Exploit Option
    (checking this box will have the following effect):
    * AI starts with an extra stack of Tier 3 units to help protect the Leader and/or Heroes.
    * AI starts with extra bonus mana/gold to sustain the initial Tier 3 units in the following formula:
    * +96 gold/mana for turns 1-14
    * +48 gold/mana for turns 15-24
    * +24 gold/mana for turns 25-30

    This would be in addition to whatever bonus’s or negative’s the AI gets based on the difficulty level you’re playing at. Thus if you wanted to play a non-cheating game and you can’t help but rush the AI, the AI gets this boost in the early game, but it trails off as it gets it’s kingdom going. If you play at Emperor level this would be a flat rate calculated after the its general 100% bonus to everything.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by  President.
    #86228

    azazelicko
    Member

    I agree with you, some of those changes made in the last patch are counter-productive when it comes to enjoyment of the game for average players. The massive increase in global enchantment upkeep feels wrong. Ok, I can agree that some of the more powerful enchantments needed their upkeep increased, but really more then doubling the upkeep is too much even with the “decrease” of the casting cost.
    I agree that the problem with mana exploit in diplomacy should have been dealt with in the diplomacy level and not on the level of resources. The mana cap is practically meaningless. What terrifies me even more is hearing about how the the mana generation is being lowered in the early game, like my sorcerer wasn’t strapped for mana for the first 20 turns or so.

    #86230

    Magus77
    Member

    jpinard, I have to agree with you in full!!

    I think this heated phase will die down in a week or two, and more reasonable thoughts will get through.

    I played the campaign in part even before the first patch. I think it is not optimal to combine heroes in one stack, btw. I seems easier, but it is actually better to have normal units and one hero, since you can have more powerful stacks, combining your heroes makes a powerful stack, but it is your only one…

    But this adjusting up and down and ‘fixing’ (i.e. limiting) is not good. AOW-SM had exploits, but I have it still installed and play it from time to time. The new AOW3 is fantastical, really, but there are some bad decisions and imbalances, which will be ironed out – I trust Triumph, they know what they do.

    So – I expect to have a very good game, balanced and fun to play in a month or two. Now they try to satisfy people who will go to other games soon anyway…

    The decision ‘one spell a round’ and ‘no overland unit spell’ killed the in game Mana balance (IMHO) and need to be rethought. Also missing are transportation methods (Balloons, …) like in AOW-SM. With XL maps it can be quite tedious to transport your troops. Also the new water management (create ship, loose all your movement points) is a massive advantage for flyers. Since many heroes can fly using their mounts you are on the look for flying troops, or you will march for countless turns. One water tile one hex big can stop a stack for an entire turn…

    There are other things besides the Mana problem. I have fun playing the game in SP slow, looking at the carefully done maps, finding things, exploring…

    The ‘rush to the enemy’ and kill it fast strategy is possible (and was possible in AOW-SM), and people who like to play it this way are welcome (at least in SP), its their game. But I do not want a ruined game because of this strategies, and I do not use them, because I have no fun at all this way…

    I agree to what you say!!

    M.

    #86245

    Hulahn
    Member

    I tend to agree with jpinard…

    I have not played with the new patch yet, as I am a GOG customer, but from what I’m reading of the patch notes, there has been an almost (if not) complete overhaul of the mana system, as well as changes to many of the units’ combat prowess (in many different ways, based on each unit).

    Not having any prior experience with Triumph, I fear simply that it is a lot of changes all at once, and wonder how it will affect overall gameplay for the general populace.

    I, for one, am currently on a RGM game as a Dreadnought against a single AI-Knight Theocrat opponent on a small map, and finding a few things:
    1) I am still consistently running out of mana and having to find new sources for it even on turn 77, as I am not able to maintain a steady flow (income) with only 4 spells to pay maintenance cost for;
    2) I am slow to expand, as I found that it takes a lot to keep the AI from walking in and taking my many cities without constant care and attention being paid to defenses, which my newcomer ways have yet to find their groove on early-game (read: turn 77 seems almost not “early on” anymore);
    3) I fear that my lack of developed skill with the game will have an even tougher learning curve with the new changes, and if it becomes too difficult of an entry fee to learn enough basic mechanics just to get a decent start, then I will lose interest (I could easily not be alone on this one); and,
    4) I am still making mistakes in shoring up my defenses, and monitoring the opponent through watch towers, and other tactics for avoiding surprises that kill my leader, or reduce my throne city to rubble;

    Finally, I cannot believe that Triumph spent 39 months on this game- and after successfully making three of these in the past- and did not bake in some ready goodness in balancing the game. Thus, I fear most that a rush to completely overhaul this game will tilt it too far in the opposite direction without the same adequate time spent play-testing.

    The original released state of this game had a very nice balance of early mechanics which everyone (term used generally) could pick up fairly easily, and especially learn through the campaign; and then, enough intricacies to delve into later on, as you got going, to make things even more interesting. I thought this type of balance to the game was very cool, and now believe it to be very crucial to the type of game that Triumph has brought us. Please, Triumph, do not spoil the experience for beginners toward the ultimate end of correcting things for the more advanced players (only).

    Thank you for the game that you released, and I hope for a bright future for Age of Wonders 3.

    #86249

    Weltenreiter
    Member

    Not sure if I’m just in the “blast radius” so to speak because I’m OP of cited thread, or if I’m actually being attacked here.
    Or just feeling that way because “Them thar EVIL POWERGAMERS are why we can’t have nice thing” in any resemblance of shape or form axiomatically riles me the heck up.

    Will respond properly at some point when chewed through wall of text.

    In the meantime, on the probably incorrect and hypersensitive assumption that I have to defend my even posting that thread, two things:

    One – Apparently hero level caps were supposed to be in the game from the start, and it apparently was an error that they got left out (at least that’s how I interpreted various dev statements on the issue, feel free to correct). My inquiring about the caps was not just to “screw over them thar casuals”.

    Two – Per-scenario hero level caps sort of are a genre staple in the campaign modes of these games. I for one was pretty surprised to not originally find them in. My being pleased that they are in now and being curious about their details was not to “screw over them thar casuals”.

    #86258

    Magus77
    Member


    One – Apparently hero level caps were supposed to be in the game from the start, and it apparently was an error that they got left out (at least that’s how I interpreted various dev statements on the issue, feel free to correct). My inquiring about the caps was not just to “screw over them thar casuals”.

    Yes – this was also so in AOW-SM. Heroes level much too fast, this is the problem. I was surprised, that a hero levels after 3 or 4 fights. Small wonder, that they become too strong. In AOW-SM campaign there were hero level caps.
    But I have to agree with the poster here: It is questionable to repair the caps, without re-balancing the campaign.

    Two – Per-scenario hero level caps sort of are a genre staple in the campaign modes of these games. I for one was pretty surprised to not originally find them in. My being pleased that they are in now and being curious about their details was not to “screw over them thar casuals”.

    I do not know the original thread. I have no problem with hero level caps in itself, but I have to agree with the OP of this thread, that players who use and abuse every small nook and cranny of the game and the AI tend to yell about ‘too easy’ and in the end we have a game, where you can do nothing except play in their style – all other things are turned down, forbidden, capped and adjusted. This would be a pity. There are at least two ways to play AOW (this goes for all the games in the series): The way to have a ‘challenge’, beat the game (I hate this phrase, btw) as fast as possible. And the other way to explore the world, build up, plan carefully. I have to admit, that the AI is not very good, especially for this other way, because if one carefully plans, he uses much more turns (and has much more fun, IMHO), and the only way the AI can counter that is a massive advantage in production.

    On the other hand, I play for recreation, I have enough stress in work and real life. I do not want to ignore the maps features, storm along with a Excel-Sheet optimized here/unit stack or two and kill the AI in turn 10. And in my playing style I have a longer game and much more fun. What I want is an adventure in a fantasy world. But thats only me…

    The other consideration is MP. Here exploits absolutely kill the fun. Many things Triumph did is for MP. I have read pages of complaints about AOW-SM from MP players, because several really nice features could be abused in MP. Yet -I would rather lay this problem in the hands of the map designers. MP maps are different from SP maps! If the map designer can disable several features for a MP map, then the problem is solved. If (AOW-SM) teleporters make problems, disable them. Triumph disabled the Item Forge for the AOW3 campaign. Why? Because obviously they feared imbalance. I thin this is a good solution. It is nit needed to nerf half the game for this…

    And this is why I agreed to the OP

    #86270

    Hulahn
    Member

    And, as for myself, my comments were simply an expression of some latent concerns I’m having with all I’m reading in the patch notes, and also wanting to be sure that multiple play-styles are considered in those changes. It is on that last point, specifically, that I agree with the OP.

    I, for one, do not post on forums for games. Never, really. I am doing so on AoW3’s forum because I love the game so much, even in its original (released) form. I do not have problems with the dev team making changes they feel are necessary to ensure a positive experience for all players, and am hopeful that I will continue to be able to learn & enjoy this game further without being overwhelmed by the myriad details too early on; or, expected to come into the game with a heavy foundation of prior AoW gameplay experience (which I do not have). And, certainly, I do not think that the dev team would want to alienate newcomers to the series, or genre.

    I say, with no intended targeted audience, that I simply want for a game open to beginners, and experienced players, alike.

    #86277

    davidjc
    Member

    I agree hardocores can definitely kill a game fast. They play the way a small % of people would actually want to play. They are also extremely vocal. The result is a game that is handicapped and lacks the freedom to make it fun.

    I tend to use heroes and play defensive, I don’t rush or exploit the AI. But now my heroes cap at level 20, and we are getting mana caps. And I shudder to think what else they might add.

    The developers need to stop and ask themselves serious questions before implementing new changes. FIRST is this more fun this way? SECOND are we limiting how the player can interact with the game or expanding it?

    I have no problems with optional settings, I loved the resurgence on heroes option…but please stray away from making this game boring by limiting how we can play the game or destroying the Roleplay possibilities. We are all not AI rushers, a lot of people like to poke around and build up empires.

    #86279

    Weltenreiter
    Member

    But now my heroes cap at level 20

    They always did that.

    #86285

    willgamer
    Member

    I agree hardocores can definitely kill a game fast. They play the way a small % of people would actually want to play. They are also extremely vocal. The result is a game that is handicapped and lacks the freedom to make it fun.

    I tend to use heroes and play defensive, I don’t rush or exploit the AI. But now my heroes cap at level 20, and we are getting mana caps. And I shudder to think what else they might add.

    The developers need to stop and ask themselves serious questions before implementing new changes. FIRST is this more fun this way? SECOND are we limiting how the player can interact with the game or expanding it?

    I have no problems with optional settings, I loved the resurgence on heroes option…but please stray away from making this game boring by limiting how we can play the game or destroying the Roleplay possibilities. We are all not AI rushers, a lot of people like to poke around and build up empires.

    This.

    I’ve taken over 100 hours just getting to about half way through Elven 5. While I love all the bug fixes, the balance changes make me doubt I’ll even be able to finish the campaign (that was balanced originally).

    I can only hope Triumph will take note of this thread.

    #86291

    Renegade35
    Member

    Heroes. It is spelt Heroes.

    And yes, it is indeed somewhat mind boggling seeing a game primarily utilized for single player campaigns, scenarios, et cetera being consecutively patched with high regard to petty exploit mechanics usually found within your typical super-competitive multiplayer titles, where generally everything imaginable needs to be fine-tuned (read: turned into a boring, generic mess) to the last percent.

    The newest patch is a perfect example. Horned Gods lightning starts on cooldown, Juggernaut offensive power nerfed across the board, Exalted healing ability removed, just to name a few. The patch notes might as well have read: “Reduced the fun playing with the following units by a significant margin.”

    Fortunately, the game can be modded to mostly undo the damage caused by this kind of one-sided design philosophy, which can only be politely described as “sadly misguided”.

    Accept it, Triumph. This is not “Age of Warcraft, turn based edition”. It does not need to be even more “main-streamlined” than it already is, and it will never be something the vast and generous multiplayer-masses will flock to, drowning you under floodwaves of fame and money in the process.

    Its a nice little game, for a nice little market. Be happy with that, and treat it accordingly. Stop patching it to bits.

    #86299

    ShortBear
    Member

    I agree with the folks here. A slower paced “fantasy adventure” is the game I like to play. Rushing and murdering the AI quick is totally valid but it shouldn’t be to only game in town. That being said I like the way mana caps were implemented because buying the AIs co-operation in the late game with your thousands of extra mana crystals felt weird. But I don’t think the spell costs should have been increased alongside that.

    On another note I feel as though the balancing has come down to “make strong things weaker” for the most part where it would be more fun for it to be primarily “make weak and average things stronger to contend”.

    Keep working at it triumph and AOW3 can become even better!

    Unrelated: the settler cost changes were good. Nice to see slightly fewer cities sprawled across the world 😛

    #86300

    Steven Aus
    Member

    Inviting dev response to this thread.

    #86306

    I’ve enjoyed the beta patch so far, I like the slower pace etc. The big question I have, is what is the actual design intention for mana? I like having to be more deliberate and careful about mana usage now, but is it intended to be a no-brainer cast whatever you want every turn? Are we supposed to make decisions about what to strategically cast and when, or is it supposed to have an all-of-the-above approach? I like the changes personally- gives more weight to those actions.

    Also should the classes perhaps have their mana usage more balanced?

    #86307

    Nosphoros
    Member

    This.

    I’ve taken over 100 hours just getting to about half way through Elven 5. While I love all the bug fixes, the balance changes make me doubt I’ll even be able to finish the campaign (that was balanced originally).

    I can only hope Triumph will take note of this thread.

    Sorry ,the post isnt just directed to you, but also to the OP, but when I first played 1.0 I started with the elven Campaign, and to make things clear, before AoW 3 came out, I started to play Aow SM again to get into the right mood.
    The result was, I tended to my playstyle and was beaten up in the first campaign level, because the AI just overun me with many stacks and some units were already shrines, while I was exploring.Next try I was building up faster and blocked passways, and build up again fought the enemy hero several times , when itcame to his cities , they were mostly full of shrines, this was annoying.
    So third try rushing straight through build up cheap troops beat the crap out of the hero and seize most of its cities and then just spam him with cheap units until he was finished over.

    The second level was even worse, I was happy to peacefully build up, since they didnt want to attack me, it was a hard tough fight, since I took too long again, and needed to start over again asecond time and steamroll early rush through…

    3rd mission, I tended to believe it would be good to rush the swamp, and then build up, no senor , i needed to even seize the dwarven cites too and block the entrances to experience the game, since I want to explore, improve and level my heroes.I am a huge friend of Map Designs, when i build maps I try to be highly detailed about them, every tree is handplaced etc, so I was forced to rush again…

    At mission 4 I stopped the campaign, since I didnt want to rush rush rush rush, because I explored everything..

    The Campaigns , thats my point, were never “balanced” in some long play way. I have nothing against it, taht the AI trys to beat me up with armies , and gets me unaware, but doesnt seeing it for 20turns , to be then surprised with a stack of juggernauts while I was , focussing on two of 6 cities to get high tier units myself, made me asking, how does the ai do that? It was stupid to try with any goblin unit to fight against juggernauts, i needed summons and converts…

    I am for the changes, they arent complete now I guess, but they go to the right direction, when the new patch is applied to gog, I will start the campaign again and see for myself.

    And one thing I learned, stacking heroes is stupid, maximum 2 heroes in one stack, but even that I split up later when I can afford more troops. then I attack with both stacks together if needed.I learned that too, because in AoW SM hero-stacks were unbeatable, since all can cast and so on.

    When I am reading maps should last on this size around this turns , I start to ask me again , really? I am playing an extra large map with the first patch atm, and I discovered 25% of the extra large map(with underground) met 2 AI and am around turn 94, I am starting to add tier 4 units to my armies since turn 60 or so…
    I mean , whats the sense in such huge maps, when the game is supposed to be rushing the crap out of everyone, this is not Starcraft or Warcaft III (where I also disliked the rushing , even when I enjoyed the MP, since RTS is different from TBS, because I allways thought, RTS = fast game, TBS = long game)

    #86308

    I agree with the folks here. A slower paced “fantasy adventure” is the game I like to play. Rushing and murdering the AI quick is totally valid but it shouldn’t be to only game in town.

    Which is exactly what a majority of these changes have done. Slowed the game down considerably. You and the AI are no longer able to roll out dozens of t4 units by turn 30 nor are you drowning in a sea of gold or mana. In fact, those who cried the loudest for pacing adjustments were not power gamers, but turtlers who had games exceeding 100+ turns and were now swamped with doom stacks and oceans of resources. If anything you guys should largely be thankful for the pacing changes they’ve made as it’s turn the game into a much slower, much more fun game. Rushing is still possible, but it won’t be done with doom stacks of t4s anymore. Personally, in my games, I rarely saw t4 before 1.092, with it, they’re even rarer and well worth the status given to them.

    As for the other complaints regarding balancing and such, again, a lot of this is going back to trying to slow down the pacing of the game. Some of the solutions people propose are naturally off the wall but I warrant Triumph takes them about as seriously as the rest of us do. The only thing that has me worried is the XP system and those who are keen on exploiting it. For those of us who do not exploit the system there is very little that’s wrong with it and one solution that Triumph is actually considering is one of the more radical fixes of capping how much XP a unit can earn in a single battle. I’ve stated my opinion elsewhere about this.

    Beyond that, while I understand the general gripe here, I urge you to realize what’s changing are, in general, pacing in nature. The few unit tweaks are of course debatable, as is the case with the Exalted, but as Triumph has proven they’re very willing to listen to fans and make changes provided you’re able to make solid points and cases for what your lobbing for. If you feel some of the crazy ideas offered by some forumites to be too extreme reply as to exactly why.

    #86311

    Steven Aus
    Member

    I agree very much with the previous post – it is well-reasoned and makes a lot of sense.

    #86322

    Fanboi1234
    Member

    I disagree with just about everything said against the “exploiters” here. Not going through each item line by line – not worth my time. “Minusthedrifter” makes enough good points.

    #86324

    melkathi
    Member

    I got to say, I hope the devs listen just as little to the “too hard” crowd.
    Just because some people have trouble with a game doesn’t mean it is too difficult. I’m terrible at sports games and shooters. Cest la vie. I enjoy playing some one easy, but I’d never presume to have the whole game based on my abilities.

    I finishe the campaign in one try. It took a long time. I was happy that it took a while, sitting three days on one mission. It isn’t often that a game’s campaign actually lasts these days. It is great that Age of Wonders 3 stayed true to its roots there.
    But while it may taken me nearly 90 hours to beat the campaign, at no time was I finding normal difficulty challenging or did I have to load (other than the usual Sundren getting seduced in mission 2 -> game over *sigh* good thing they changed that). It took a long time because maps were huge and I was taking my time.

    Hitting an enemy hard and fast isn’t an exploit. It is a strategy game. That means figuring out a strategy that works and beating your opponent with it. It does not mean deciding on a strategy regardless of whether it has any chance of success and then demanding that the opponents lose to it. This is not meant to anyone in this thread, but I have seen people expecting to be able to outproduce and out-tech opponents with just their starting town – being upset that one town produces less troops than half a dozen towns. Maths doesn’t work that way. To a large part, the campaign missions start the player as the underdog. It means the player will have to use their initial advantage (AI being pretty inactive at the start of each mission) to establish a powerbase strong enough to be able to handle the AI once it wakes up. If that AI controls 2/3 of the map (as it does in Elven 3), then even if the player controls the whole last third, production wise they will still outproduced 2 to 1 and end up outnumbered on the battlefield 2 to 1. Understanding that those are unfavourbale odds and trying to adjust them, is not exploiting.

    That said, the huge patch with what seems to be drastic changes had me a bit worried. It seems weird that such changes are made so shortly after release.

    #86329

    Hickmanj
    Member

    I have been playing the game without the new beta patch and it seems very balanced in many ways for SP.

    I agree with a lot in the OP’s post. I also agree that a lot of the complaints are probably from MP not SP people.

    I am on turn 90 or so on a above ground x-large map with 8 AI players set to King. I am playing a Dwarf/Dreadnought. I take my time and slowly expand, attack the AI etc. I have had a blast – the AI uses tier IV units but also with a large mix of tier 2 and 3 units to complement.

    I don’t find tier IV invincible at all. In fact I sent 2 Dreadnoughts, 2 First Born, a cannon and an engineer to take a city and the AI attacked with 2 stacks of tier 2 and 3 and severely damaged me – then they mopped up with one tier iv and more tier 3 units (1 stack).

    I can’t afford to field 8 stacks of Tier iv.

    So I’m not sure what people do who are saying they can field such massive armies so quickly???

    AoW3 is a vast improvement for single player with the AI settling cities, attacking etc. than the other games in the series. I used to have to make my own maps to get a good wargame on Emperor – now I get a great game on the random maps and haven’t handled Emperor yet.

    I wonder if people who min/max are the issue and I share the fear that they will cause the devs to take away all the cool random factors from the game (example: Galactic Civ II and Fallen Enchantress are lauded as good AI but it’s because they have a rock-paper-scissors aspect that is incredibly boring, whereas Master of Orion 2 allowed people to make killer combinations if they wanted (boring) but also to play moderately and have a blast).

    It’s not up to the devs to balance everything – it’s up to the player to choose a play style.

    I played elven/arch druid the other night and had a much harder time than my orc/warlord.

    That is how it should be imho.

    +1 for worries of the OP.

    #86331

    CrazyElf
    Member

    That said, the huge patch with what seems to be drastic changes had me a bit worried. It seems weird that such changes are made so shortly after release.

    Yeah I’m not too crazy about the changes that they’ve made. I think that they’re too soon, and too wide in scope. A more incremental deployment of the patches would be a better option.

    #86334

    That said, the huge patch with what seems to be drastic changes had me a bit worried. It seems weird that such changes are made so shortly after release.

    This.. So much this. Only thing I would change in that statement is “has me a bit worried” instead of had since I haven’t played the upcoming version yet.

    I worry if it ruins the enjoyment for me in some way, will I even be able to tell just exactly what caused it with such large changelogs so early in the games life? Or was it actually just a combination of multiple changes causing a greater effect?

    #86356

    Amarok
    Member

    Registered here just to reply to this thread… I completely agree with the OP.

    The number of threads about hyper-competitive players who have found an exploit and abused it as much as possible is just mind-boggling. While these players do certainly have valid concerns, they skew the forums immensely by spamming thread after thread about the new loopholes in the game they use to ensure they win as quickly and easily as possible.

    Fix exploitable bugs of course, but trying to balance around players who will always seek out and abuse exploits to ensure they have the best competitive edge doesn’t seem like the right way to go for something like Age of Wonders 3.

    #86370

    esvath
    Member

    Fix exploitable bugs of course, but trying to balance around players who will always seek out and abuse exploits to ensure they have the best competitive edge doesn’t seem like the right way to go for something like Age of Wonders 3.

    +1 on this.

    I really hope Triumph has a broader vision and listens to both side of the argument when patching.

    #86373

    Steven Aus
    Member

    And that is something I can definitely agree with, listening to both/all reasonable sides of the argument. 🙂

    #86385

    b0rsuk
    Member

    The campaign was always about enemies having more cities than you. Time is working against you. If your enemy has more cities than you, thinking you can sit back and outproduce him “because it’s my style” is foolish.

    No plan survives contact with the enemy. — Helmuth von Moltke
    This is war. You need to adapt. You can’t just sit back and do your own thing and expect everyone to play by your rules.

    You are also forgetting these changes affect AI as well. For example settlers now cost 2000 population instead of 750. This means much less city spamming.

    Before the new patch, Mythical ruins can be cleared trivially in scenario 6. With your starting army. Use Larissa and Chaos Rift.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by  President.
    #86404

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Everyone saying that the first map of the Elven campaign was hard, didn’t play AoW III, but opnly sat around. You can easily end the map before turn 20 – without doing anything out of the ordinary, just doing what common sense would dictate. SCOUT and keep being on the move, since the whole context cries URGENT.

    So while I see a certain sense in the OP’s post – don’t go too far into a direction that will dictate too much of omne game style, I also and especially agree with Borsuk’s point that can be generalized to: you have to adapt to the game, not vice versa.

    #86427

    Sathra
    Member

    I’m not someone who exploits the game (I purposely do inefficient things like bring 2 stacks of t1 infantry to attack a city with a stack of Juggernauts) and I really LIKE the changes.

    In my current game, its nearly turn 200 and I’m mostly just scouting around and clearing treasure sites. I declare war on an AI when I’m bored, but generally let them build up and watch them fight each other. With the new patch, the AI started building Musketeers. I’ve never seen the AI build more than 2, total.

    Already guessed the AI would rush T4 when I first started playing, so now I’m just seeing how it uses them. Of course the AI is going to make as many T4 + T3 as possible, all I’m concerned about is that they don’t build anything else most of the time. In the new patch, they do! Well, kinda. More racial units at least, but its a strange mix of T1 with a few T3. Its having issues with expanding, and still doesn’t consolidate forces in the field, but there’s a better mix.

    I am build alot of Phalanxes, but its mostly because I like the look of a battle line of them.

    #86435

    azazelicko
    Member

    Sathra and everyone else, I think some of these changes are in the right direction, my only problem is the way they went about dealing with the problem of mana in diplomacy in later stages and the extreme increase of global spell upkeep. I agree that the spell upkeep increase was necessary in some cases but not to such an immense degree. I also think that the hard limit to the amount of mana you have isn’t the right way to go. Maybe if they instead gave mana a decreasing value in diplomacy the more mana you gave to the AI. But that is just me. I agree with the difficulty of campaign, but I think that some of the changes, not all and most likely not most, are in reaction to the calls from hardcore players and/or exploiters.

    Damn, I adore the addition of more class buildings.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 67 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.