jb

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 69 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Ram Buffs #192133

    jb
    Member

    Active stage of balancing ends in 2 month. That’s why…

    I see.

    What does the inactive stage of balancing look like? I don’t understand how the timetable works…

    in reply to: Ram Buffs #192116

    jb
    Member

    I agree that rams are fine as is.

    I use them a lot. (4) rams can typically take out any neutral outpost/village of the AI. Four turns and 200g? What a deal. You might have to cast a spell, but often not. (4) irregulars can not always duplicate this. No barracks required.

    As for the larger debate on this thread, I believe the concern is too many changes too fast. Before the effects of a change can be fully explored, the next change is already implemented.

    Already in the first page Tombles said he could make the unit tankier, despite there being only 3 people agreeing on the topic by that point.

    Such a good observation.

    in reply to: Killer Instinct #174830

    jb
    Member

    I personally don’t like the idea of adding Total Awareness or First Strike.

    I could see adding Tireless though. More fitting for the theme of the spell.

    in reply to: Orc archer #173328

    jb
    Member

    razorbows are so bad theyre good. nobody wants to waste time attacking them so they can just keep shooting all the way to gold rank and actual damage.

    Okay, that is pretty funny 🙂

    I have no problem with orc archers. They fill their intended role.

    in reply to: Seafaring nerfed too far – navel movement #173319

    jb
    Member

    Amphibious assaults were too easy before the changes. And now they are still possible, but difficult, as it should be imo

    Currently you need to be (2) hexes away IF it’s a coastal city (21 -6 -14). If you want to use a second stack, it’s then impossible.

    If the city is a hex away from sea then you literally need to be adjacent the land. I think that is a very technical definition of possible.

    in reply to: Tier 4 Racial Units #172309

    jb
    Member

    I’m not against racial T4’s as a concept. I just prefer to utilize development resources elsewhere.

    The time it would take to create the required art could be better spent elsewhere.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #172305

    jb
    Member

    You are building a unit that costs 100 hammers, and you have 90 hammers. The game tells you it takes 2 turns to build. But since 90 mod 100 = .90, you have a 90% chance to autocomplete the unit in 1 turn instead of 2.

    Winner winner chicken dinner. Perfect compromise.

    in reply to: Seafaring nerfed too far – navel movement #169820

    jb
    Member

    @tombles thanks for the consideration.

    in reply to: Starting forces balance #169367

    jb
    Member

    1) I’d be ok with no T3 starting units.
    2) Not against starting with a priest, but it doesn’t support your argument since 4/7 races don’t have healing priests.
    3 & 4) No strong opinion either way.

    in reply to: Seafaring nerfed too far – navel movement #169363

    jb
    Member

    There’s going to be an ability called Fast Embark that (all?) Frostling units will have, this will reduce (dis?)embarking costs.

    Totally separate issue. That’s like saying dwarfs have cavecrawling so don’t reduce cave movement.

    in reply to: The Great Support Project #163805

    jb
    Member

    And about multiplayer, the problem is not the platform but rather the specifics of the game itself. One game can take forever to finish, and it’s difficult to have a popular mp in a game like this.

    The mulitplayer problem does indeed have platform issues. Don’t pretend otherwise.

    -There is no chat or lobby
    -There is no lobby to see other available players
    -There is no way to watch other games being played as an observer
    -There is no way to send messages to allies only in game

    I made a big post about it about a year ago, don’t want to derail this thread.
    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/mp-lobby-feature-requests/

    in reply to: Surrender Mechanics #163765

    jb
    Member

    I like the surrender option. I think the AI surrenders at the appropriate time as well.

    There is one flaw, however. The AI should NEVER surrender during a team game when it has living allies. Only if it’s the last AI on the team should it be possible to surrender.

    in reply to: Wall Climbing, any use for it? #162085

    jb
    Member

    I love wall climbing. I use it a lot. The trick, in my opinion, is to use them in groups of three. A single unit wall climbing is not as useful as three units at once.

    Of course, each situation is unique and I tend to use a lot of infantry.

    in reply to: A handful of ideas #161010

    jb
    Member

    I guess class units do indeed cause some problems.

    how would this work? why would it cost less when inside an enemy domain? it would make sense for a ship to cost more when inside an enemy domain. if you want to use plunder, you should give a gold reward for plundering, since when you plunder you gain gold not have things cost less. or call the ability something else like Stasis Mode or something, where upkeep is lowered but so is movement.

    I think it’s a simple idea. Your upkeep is reduced because you are plundering from the enemy. If there is no enemy to plunder, then there is no upkeep bonus. It requires a bit of imagination, but the point is to keep the mechanic simple. Lower upkeep is the exact same thing as money in your purse.

    Assuming, you reduce general healing to 5 points and extra healing (hero ability that gives another 6) to 5 points as well (but not Dracomians innate ability), and then you give +2 HPs healing for forfeiting your MPs – how would that reduce the time between fights for everyone?

    I appreciate you defending the idea, but once we start to change one thing (to change other things) then even I’m against it. You are correct however, that the idea is a tradeoff! To me, mini choices like this are interesting when playing. You move a single hex, you lose the bonus.

    Words like game-breaking are over the top hyperbole. Game altering, sure, but let’s not overstate what it is. Most players wouldn’t even notice this change. It’s very subtle.

    The question is, why would increase heal of unmoving stacks ? The answer is : to lose less time between fights.

    Yes, the idea of healing is to return to combat readiness. If you don’t move you can’t fight…so math vs logistics.

    The situation I think would be most useful is a unit that is near death. The lengthy heal would be slightly faster for such a unit.

    I would like a rest until healed, the unit remain on ‘guard’ until all healable units are fully healed

    Really not a bad idea. I’m not sure there would be an easy way to implement this without making a new button though.

    cheers

    in reply to: Simple idea to Incentivize underground exploration #160496

    jb
    Member

    I really like this idea. Gold veins and Mana veins both would be nice.

    in reply to: Interest for more UGC? #154875

    jb
    Member

    I think a great idea would be to string together three or four random maps into a ‘campaign’.

    Basically allowing for heroes to reach high levels by playing consecutive maps, but tons of replay value with random generated maps.

    in reply to: POLL: What 2 Races in Next Expansion? #139824

    jb
    Member

    Tigrans with some of the Nomad flavored units. Maybe tigrans are slavers now.

    Bugs (shadow or non-shadow) as a dwelling.

    in reply to: A scout unit for Warlord? Totally overpowered! #139822

    jb
    Member

    One solution is to turn off the free gold/mana drops. The more I play the more I turn these off as it just gives extra advantage to any player lucky enough to start a flying summon.

    Another thread mention adding guards to these ‘free’ pickups. I like that idea long term, but for now just turn off the free pickups.

    in reply to: Structures and Rewards Balance Discussion #131050

    jb
    Member

    Thief Cowl = +1 vision underground?

    It would be nice to disable the thief cowl from the reward list if the map doesn’t have underground.

    in reply to: Dev Journal: Bone Collector and Deathbringer Units! #131048

    jb
    Member

    Everything looks great so far. Really nice work.

    Are you going to include Frostlings in that expansion (DLS)? I think that many guys here would like to see them in the game.

    A Frostling campaign featuring a Necro leader would hit all the happy buttons.

    in reply to: Mountains in random maps #129562

    jb
    Member

    I’m sure it’s just coincidence…since part of a RMG is ‘random’…but when I set Roads to Many, I see far fewer mountains.

    Again, this may just be coincidence and maybe roads are overlayed last.

    in reply to: [Following] Naval Balance Discussion #127965

    jb
    Member

    I had another thought. I think it may have been mentioned already, but basically it boils down to having things to fight for in the water.

    Water forts. A defensive navel structure that provides domain radius. This might require a few more water resources to make them viable…water nodes, water gold mine, mermaid shrines, etc.

    in reply to: Something is wrong with base building.. #127952

    jb
    Member

    There’s literally no incentive nor limitation to build every structure in every city

    Why would you ever do this? Sounds like a huge waste of gold to me.

    Build the buildings you need, then pump out units.

    I try to dedicate each city to producing specific types of units. A support unit city, an archer city, a machine city, a melee unit city, a research city, a class unit city, etc. 4-7 buildings is all you need to turn a city into a functioning factory.

    If you are making every building in every city your games are going to take much longer. Make units, not buildings.

    in reply to: [FOLLOWED] WARLORD Balance Discussion #125433

    jb
    Member

    I’m all for asymmetry, but the idea of an irregular building a watchtower is a bit silly. At that point just build a builder and use it as your scout. If you want to give warlords a 10g discount for watchtowers, fine.

    Honestly, the best idea I’ve seen in this thread is to put 1 or 2 irregular units guarding the gold/mana free pickups. This solves a major balance problem of free collects and preserves the uniqueness of poor warlord scouting.

    in reply to: Tiered Unit Abilities #125244

    jb
    Member

    I think tiered abilities are already represented using the cooldown system. A great ability (high tier) has a longer cooldown period.

    in reply to: Dev Journal: Necromancer Class Design #125242

    jb
    Member

    I would like to see population become a resource Necro could exploit much more so than other classes. Some ideas below.

    **********
    Necro class units might require population instead of gold. (for example) Bone Horror= 120 population and 120 mana.

    **********
    Convert population into gold: Undead work for free and don’t need to eat.

    **********
    Blood Alter Spell: Sacrifice population to remove negative moral penalties in target city.

    in reply to: [Following] Naval Balance Discussion #123770

    jb
    Member

    I’d also consider differentiating between Rivers and Ocean. Shallow Water and Deep Water.

    Swimming could be split into two types. Shallow and Deep. As examples, Monster Hunter is a shallow swimmer. Kraken is a deep water swimmer.

    I don’t like the idea of reducing the movement of floaters/flyers…at that point just let them get their own ship.

    they should gain HPs back when they lie at anchor in a friendly harbor. That’s not even worth a discussion.

    Totally agree they should heal in harbors. I’d even go further and let them heal (modestly) within the domain of any city with a harbor. Or allow a Carpenter upgrade.

    Why would you need regen on the ship otherwise ? Because warships are already *very* strong.

    Because the game is long and units take damage.

    The thing is that most people look at seas as a road yet don’t consider them strategically.

    Very true, especially rivers I view has ‘the fast lane’. But oceans are different, a chaotic mess of movement sometimes, hehe. But that is why I propose a deep water type to really give a terrain for galleons to truly dominate.

    in reply to: Golden Realms and V1.4 Released #123090

    jb
    Member

    Cool. Nice work.

    in reply to: [FOLLOWED] WARLORD Balance Discussion #123057

    jb
    Member

    This came up in another thread, but I wanted to mention it here too.

    The new naval mechanics in the 1.4 patch eliminates the extra movement from boat to land. I think this is a hidden nerf to the Warlord scouting situation. Scouting via boat was a very viable option in the absence of a true scout…now that is gone too.

    in reply to: Rivers, Fleets and Naval problems. #123053

    jb
    Member

    Sorry, I strongly disagree. I like the current mechanics. Loading all units onto a single defenseless transport ship is not appealing at all. Its not more strategic depth, its just a different strategy.

    In fact, the most recent change (eliminating extra movement from boat to land) reduces amphibious assault options. I’d prefer to revert back to the original way it worked before the 1.4 patch.

    Further, the new change hurts the Warlord more than any other class, as scouting via boat was a great option.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 69 total)