New Features & New Troops - Feedback & Discussion

At least one person understood the argument. Glad to have you here, unknown French person!

Point is, was and still remains, the Egyptian's are far too strong.

Their unit composition is top tier.
Their unique building is top tier
And their hero bonus is in a category on its own.

You really need to turn off the hero bonus and increase the cost of the special Egyptian building significantly. Twice the cost of the HM seems reasonable. That way you can still afford low level in some villages to get at least a small bonus and in the capital you need to calculate to which level it makes sense and not just always build it to lvl 20.

Schneeente wrote:

At least one person understood the argument. Glad to have you here, unknown French person!

Point is, was and still remains, the Egyptian's are far too strong.

Their unit composition is top tier.
Their unique building is top tier
And their hero bonus is in a category on its own.

You really need to turn off the hero bonus and increase the cost of the special Egyptian building significantly. Twice the cost of the HM seems reasonable. That way you can still afford low level in some villages to get at least a small bonus and in the capital you need to calculate to which level it makes sense and not just always build it to lvl 20.

Show All

before i have a count on .com too but with fusion i can use my fr account here

at first i think
it's sad to have a special building and construct him only on capital. If we increase cost as u want, it will be built only on capital..
I think we should increase the cost ( not more) and limite the building at his lvl10. 50% bonus is already pretty good.
it's still a pretty good bonus like that.

but if we look :

on a 6cc 100% ( manoir lvl 15) (+25% active)
currently :
normal => 5250 cc
with egyptian building => 7350

with only 50%
normal => 5250
with egyptian building => 6300

as u can see, we have 2100 cc/hour more on a simple 6cc. That's verry good on normal village.

currently if we just up the waterworks lvl 10, it's only cost 85.000 ress for have a 50% bonus on oasis and win 25.200 cc/days..

i think waterwork is really too strong. in my opinion, we should keep the actual price and put the limite to 50% at lvl 20

Schneeente wrote:

That is absolutely not true. They have a defensive unit that is a mix between Legio and Praet. The exact opposite of what you just said. Their building is far far far far far too strong. So is their hero bonus.Their unit composition is strong but not too strong as the other 2 bonuses.

I was thinking more Slaves, as the total defense you get through 24/7 production is going to be better with Slaves than Wardens. You can go Warden so you don't have a high crop consumption, but it won't be as efficient later on.

Regarding the overall assessment of the Egyptian hero bonus (and whether it's only good early-game or both), as well as the Waterworks. I want to bring up an example from a game that's been around for an incredibly long time. Magic: the Gathering.

The most powerful and sought-after cards are not creatures with insanely good destruction abilities or spells that blow everything up. What people value the most are the cards that grant resources. Cards that provide great card advantage, cards that are extremely efficient in providing mana, cards that can reuse these things over and over again. It's all about providing the player with the necessary resources to get to a place where they can use a big creature or blow everything up.

The Egyptian bonuses are exactly that. Any tribe can level resource fields; any tribe can raid players, natars, and oases. But the Egyptians have a hero bonus and a building that says "Hey, I get more resources than you do and there's nothing you can do about it." That type of advantage is incredibly powerful. Regardless of whether the number of resources seem significant in mid-to-late-game, the fact that they get all these bonuses in the first place is what makes the advantages so broken.

Eventually Wizards of the Coast realized the power of these types of cards. They severely toned down how much future cards can grant, as well as how much that bonus is going to cost you. I feel as though that is what is going to happen here. This is the first time we've seen such a significant resource advantage provided to a tribe. Once the ramifications of these bonuses are shown, we'll probably see it get changed.

From your lips to God's ears.

IronTsunami wrote:

I was thinking more Slaves, as the total defense you get through 24/7 production is going to be better with Slaves than Wardens. You can go Warden so you don't have a high crop consumption, but it won't be as efficient later on.
*SNIP*

IronTsunami, can you do us (me) a favor and post in black, since the orange lettering on basically an orange-themed background makes your message a bit harder to read, at least for people like myself who might have to squint while reading your posts..
but carry on with the content

Yeah, I suppose changing colors is a must. I am sad that the new layout contrasts with orange so much. I've been using that color on forums as long as I can remember.

Templar Knight wrote:

...

Any news on whether the hun hero bonus is working as intended or not?

Schneeente wrote:

At least one person understood the argument. Glad to have you here, unknown French person!

Point is, was and still remains, the Egyptian's are far too strong.

Their unit composition is top tier.
Their unique building is top tier
And their hero bonus is in a category on its own.

You really need to turn off the hero bonus and increase the cost of the special Egyptian building significantly. Twice the cost of the HM seems reasonable. That way you can still afford low level in some villages to get at least a small bonus and in the capital you need to calculate to which level it makes sense and not just always build it to lvl 20.

Show All

Now that you've actually made a point (which no one was arguing against before, even though you tried your hardest to make it look that way - everyone put Egyptian hero bonus at the top), instead of making posts like below;

Schneeente wrote:

Seriously? Are your really serious?
The bonus is amazing at the start and then it becomes useless?

Before I answer seriously, I give you the chance to retract your statement.

We can actually discuss things.

Yes, the Egyptian hero bonus is incredibly strong. The only tribes that could potentially compete in settling will probably be teuts and maybe huns, but only if they farm very well, and carefully optimize the account for settling fast. Having been in top 10 to settle, by ways of simming with old tribes on a couple of servers, I can tell that maybe only 2-5 people on average will be in contention to outsettle a simming Egyptian as teuts/huns. And tbh it's probably dubious if they will even be able to. First to settle on this beta server was an Egyptian, and the account wasn't even fully optimized in terms of buildpath.

Now, that's comparing tribes who are actually able to raid for a fast settling. Anything else will be left in the dust. I'm doing a simming start with huns, and I will be 48 hours or so late with settling compared to the first settle, with only a few mistakes in build path. if I had done everything optimally it would probably be 30 hours late is my guesstimate. And this is keeping in mind that the Egyptian account was a lot less optimized in build path.

For the average non-farming account, or for farming accounts who aren't fully focused on settling first, we're talking several days difference between those who play other tribes, and those who play Egyptians - even just average Egyptian accounts.

Before, you could sim and settle within 24 hours of the ones doing the best raiding starts. And only a few players on the server would be doing the optimal raiding starts for settling fast, so simming as any tribe was viable.I did top 10 on both Roman and Gaul np. Now, Egyptians simming will potentially be the fastest way to settle, even outpacing people dedicating full days and nights to raiding oases. This will obviously completely smash the settling balancing/eco-system (if you will), as it is. And it will hugely affect cropper availability.

I think this will probably hurt Romans and Gauls the most. Romans used to be 2nd in hammer making after teutons, with a lot lower crop consumption. With simming start being viable to settle not too far off of the most agressively farming teuts, Romans were good. With the addition of huns and Egyptians, I see Romans taking a big hit in viability. Huns are better in off/time than Romans (beating imp/EC), with troops being a lot cheaper. If you want to raid heavily, huns beat Romans in raiding and off/time too (steppe riders and infantry give more off/time than imp/EI, and steppes are better raiders than EI, and a lot cheaper once again).

Obviously for gauls, they used to be a lot of deffers go-to tribe. Egyptians have comparable defensive capabilities + they have the incredibly strong simming start - no gaul will be even close to competing with that.

Now, that is not even getting into the special buildings. Gaul trapper is ofc laughably bad compared to brewery and HDT. But now comparing it to a building that gives you ~63k more crop per hour from a 150% 15c with just level 18 fields? Insane. HDT is obviously amazing, brewery is good too, hun command center is a bit meh but it's alright, paired with their off power and cheap units. But here we're looking at primarily/most often offensive tribes. If we compare Gauls, who would be the competing tribe to Egyptians... Yep, lightyears away.

Especially considering that the water works will be amplified.. by the super quick settling! Egyptians will have acces to the highest % croppers, while at the same time getting the most benefit out of having a high % cropper!

So for the hero bonus -> OP, definitely. Needs to either be toned down significantly, changed, or something needs to be done for allowing faster simming starts for the other tribes, which won't benefit Egyptians.
For the special building -> OP too. Should be toned down. I'd probably say reduce the max bonus it gives.
For the two tribe advantages in union -> very OP, since they amplify each other.

This is assuming though, that Egyptians will be on a server without a boosted start. Which we have absolutely no word from TG about if they will or not. We had no idea what game settings would be like on this beta, we have no idea what the game settings will be for the actual birthday server, and we have no idea if they want to implement the new tribes on normal legends servers too (but my guess is they want to). So all in all, incredibly poor communication and excecution of this beta server from TG's side.

IronTsunami wrote:

Yeah, I suppose changing colors is a must. I am sad that the new layout contrasts with orange so much. I've been using that color on forums as long as I can remember.

Why don't you use just black? :p
What they could change is downgrade the bonus on level 20 from 50% to 25%. That's still a powerfull building, but less overpowerd.
And yes, the Egypts defensive troops are very strong. But on the opposite you have weak and expensive offensive troops.

Its 100%, not 50

Im sorry, my mistake.
I meant from 100% to 50%

Actually Egiptians have great special building indeed... but they need it badly with those slaves.

And hero bonus of the huns really sucks... in the beginning i think it should be +3 speed for all cavalry send with hero, which have more sense ... +3 speed for hero if he is send with cavalry is just big mistake, he will have some bonus just before some items bought. And will have +3 bonus only with spyes?!?!?!?! WTF really?

Kras wrote:

And hero bonus of the huns really sucks... in the beginning i think it should be +3 speed for all cavalry send with hero, which have more sense ... +3 speed for hero if he is send with cavalry is just big mistake, he will have some bonus just before some items bought. And will have +3 bonus only with spyes?!?!?!?! WTF really?

We're still waiting to know if this is intentional or not..

wishmaster3 wrote:

This is assuming though, that Egyptians will be on a server without a boosted start. Which we have absolutely no word from TG about if they will or not. We had no idea what game settings would be like on this beta, we have no idea what the game settings will be for the actual birthday server, and we have no idea if they want to implement the new tribes on normal legends servers too (but my guess is they want to). So all in all, incredibly poor communication and excecution of this beta server from TG's sid

can I just say that I agree 100%. TG communication about what the beta server entails has been very bad. I'm pretty sure many people have no idea how to play this set up, and only reason I know is that I played RoA last year. We have not been told which features are enabled on this feature, and many we expected (given last years RoA set up) were suddenly no longer there.

Also - its a beta server - surely you want us to test the tribes to the best of our abilities, including using gold? but no, there was no extra gold given, instead TG decided to use this beta as a money making server as they knew everyone would want to test new tribes. This is just sad.

lastly, its a small thing, but this is an international server (it's on com domain) and yet you are using american date format? -- just my pet peeve.

Overall impression: its purely designed to make money for TG and was very poorly executed.

Enti, I don't want to read between all your bullcrap and repeatings, but I want to hear your opinion about the following.

2 equally experienced players are starting a server. Player 1 is the Huns, player 2 the Egypts. They are both equally good in starting a server.
Player 1 is going to farm to battle for the 2nd village.
Player 2 is using his field to battle for the 2nd village, including the hero's bonus.

Who is settling first you think?
I honostly don't think there will be a clear winner. That means that a Egypts start isn't (by far) the best start. And if you don't have the best start, their production bonus isn't that overpowerd anymore, as I mentioned before.

If we're talking about a speedserver, I'm sure the Hun-player will win against the Egypts one. In that case the production bonus isn't that good at all. In that case I prefer the speedbonus of the Huns.

Templar Knight wrote:

~~~Some test were run on the server by a few staff members and it looks like there might be a bug when it comes to this. It has been turned over to developers who will then try and duplicate what was done and then they can determine what is right and what is wrong. Then they can develop a fix for it if there is a problem.
So right now we are at the stage of "The developers have it" and we wait for them to finish what they need to do.
I can say though that what was posted before may not be correct but we are working on finding out what is.
Gotta love new stuff in the testing phase.

So to clarify.. What is the intended feature? That hero increases the speed of the horses if it's faster than the horses, or?

TK,
Can we please have clarification if on birthday server in September we will have:
- the same map
- no boosted start
- no forwarding or merge (not available now, we checked)

Thanks.

Will all survey be as pointless as the first one? Will any gold be given for beta testers at any point? Will gold from beta be transferable?

wishmaster3 wrote:

We can actually discuss things.

Yes, the Egyptian hero bonus is incredibly strong. The only tribes that could potentially compete in settling will probably be teuts and maybe huns, but only if they farm very well, and carefully optimize the account for settling fast. Having been in top 10 to settle, by ways of simming with old tribes on a couple of servers, I can tell that maybe only 2-5 people on average will be in contention to outsettle a simming Egyptian as teuts/huns. And tbh it's probably dubious if they will even be able to. First to settle on this beta server was an Egyptian, and the account wasn't even fully optimized in terms of buildpath.

Now, that's comparing tribes who are actually able to raid for a fast settling. Anything else will be left in the dust. I'm doing a simming start with huns, and I will be 48 hours or so late with settling compared to the first settle, with only a few mistakes in build path. if I had done everything optimally it would probably be 30 hours late is my guesstimate. And this is keeping in mind that the Egyptian account was a lot less optimized in build path.

For the average non-farming account, or for farming accounts who aren't fully focused on settling first, we're talking several days difference between those who play other tribes, and those who play Egyptians - even just average Egyptian accounts.

Before, you could sim and settle within 24 hours of the ones doing the best raiding starts. And only a few players on the server would be doing the optimal raiding starts for settling fast, so simming as any tribe was viable.I did top 10 on both Roman and Gaul np. Now, Egyptians simming will potentially be the fastest way to settle, even outpacing people dedicating full days and nights to raiding oases. This will obviously completely smash the settling balancing/eco-system (if you will), as it is. And it will hugely affect cropper availability.

I think this will probably hurt Romans and Gauls the most. Romans used to be 2nd in hammer making after teutons, with a lot lower crop consumption. With simming start being viable to settle not too far off of the most agressively farming teuts, Romans were good. With the addition of huns and Egyptians, I see Romans taking a big hit in viability. Huns are better in off/time than Romans (beating imp/EC), with troops being a lot cheaper. If you want to raid heavily, huns beat Romans in raiding and off/time too (steppe riders and infantry give more off/time than imp/EI, and steppes are better raiders than EI, and a lot cheaper once again).

Obviously for gauls, they used to be a lot of deffers go-to tribe. Egyptians have comparable defensive capabilities + they have the incredibly strong simming start - no gaul will be even close to competing with that.

M

Now, that is not even getting into the special buildings. Gaul trapper is ofc laughably bad compared to brewery and HDT. But now comparing it to a building that gives you ~63k more crop per hour from a 150% 15c with just level 18 fields? Insane. HDT is obviously amazing, brewery is good too, hun command center is a bit meh but it's alright, paired with their off power and cheap units. But here we're looking at primarily/most often offensive tribes. If we compare Gauls, who would be the competing tribe to Egyptians... Yep, lightyears away.

Especially considering that the water works will be amplified.. by the super quick settling! Egyptians will have acces to the highest % croppers, while at the same time getting the most benefit out of having a high % cropper!

So for the hero bonus -> OP, definitely. Needs to either be toned down significantly, changed, or something needs to be done for allowing faster simming starts for the other tribes, which won't benefit Egyptians.
For the special building -> OP too. Should be toned down. I'd probably say reduce the max bonus it gives.
For the two tribe advantages in union -> very OP, since they amplify each other.

Show All

I think Egyptian building should give 10% boost - most people think of it being used only for caps, but it's cheap enough to be put to use in nearly every cropper, some who won't care for efficiency may just put it in every villa and take 3 oases per (you know you've seen people do this). My suggestion for toning down is in 2 different ways, any of which is good in my opinion, but each suggestion is exclusive of the other:

1) Fix building *only* to cap and give +25% bonus to oases
2) Allow to be built in all villas but only give 10% to oases

Hero boost should not be 2x. This can be abused quite early. Make it like the opposite of Roman hero who gets 20 points more in FS per skill point, Egyptians will just get those 20 points in res.