I saw _Taff here - a voobly moderator. I don't know his permissions, but I'd like to ask him (or someone else, who can do it) to post here an official Voobly answer to a p1.
The strategies that have evolved since the beginnings of this game are so far developed that there is no room for anything new, it's sussed out.
I'm not a programmer so I have no clue.
But is it possible to create a rec game launcher which runs outside of aoc, which can read which version the game is and just launch that version when you select the rec?
We already have that!
I suppose the problem is each time a new change comes to light *someone* would have to update that record launcher as well.
not Taff but Tic or TiC is the king of voobly
Knights got only a very minimal speed reduction, and this is to mainly promote variety in pocket play, and promote UU/Eagle strategies for example. And to be honest I think knights relative power stays basically the same since other units that sometimes cast a shadow on them - xbows/monks are nerfed too.For a few minutes I thought this balance patch idea was the same as the old thread/patch that Biz created. Now that would have been absolutely horrible 11
viewtopic.php?f=104&t=73270&p=173348&hilit=balance+patch#p173348
I'm ok with most of the ideas in the voobly patch other than the knight speed reduction and the boar attack bonus vs scouts and eagles. How about archers/skirms (but not crossbows or eskirms) get + 1 attack vs palisade walls? I like that idea.
But the best change of all is the monk nerfing.. monks are certainly the lamest, luck based strat in all of aoc. I'd rather enemy steal my boar every game than make those old perverts
That is not looking at the whole thing.Lower knight speed, and you boost already OP castle conquistadors, camels, monks, siege, archers, plums and so on. Knights are not in need of a debuff, and EW will never be a choice of strategy as a pocket unless in Imperial
Xbows didn't get nerfed with your change, only the upgrade cost was raised slightly. It's not a direct nerf on the unit, so with such a change you'd be forcing civs the ranged units path even more than before.
But I agree, there should be a new topic with a poll directly on the subject of the possibility of creating such updates, and not include any balance discussion.
1. Monk conversion randomness has been reduced, yes. (instead of 5 seconds to 12 seconds with frequent occurrences of 5 or 12 second timings for normal units, it is now 7 to 12 spread more towards the middle values)I'm not only talking about Knights looking from a pocket view, I'm talking knights in general, 1v1, 2v2, flank, pocket TG. As you hit castle age at 16 or 28 minutes, with all civs in mind, the knight transition is already seen too little of today compared to ranged units, and lowering their speed does no good as they were never too fast from the start. I just don't get why you would want to even make changes to Knights in the first place, even by just so little. They're like the most balanced unit in the game.
Monks are also fine the way they are imo, except the randomness in conversion time, which I assume still sticks even though the average is slightly raised.
The fire delay does nothing for conqs except make them worse once your at larger numbers and patrol more than micro. The hit and run OPness is still 100% there. Castle Age Conquistadors were the only unit I referred to as OP, I didn't mean the whole list were OP, though I do see how that is easily mistaken. You can never look at pure numbers anyway, you always have to take into account how units are used and in which situations they are effective and how changes affect those.
That leaves me to wonder wheter you are actually looking at the whole thing or not!
I agree to this. I didn't mean that people should adopt the balance patch I made as such. Every change needs to be discussed by some well-meaning unbiased crew.Which is also why a thing like this would have to be a crew of a few people where democracy rules.
Again: Someone should make a topic purely for the discussion on actually making this happen, with no balance discussions whatsoever.
This is a question of serving 50% of the purpose, or the purpose in its entireity. In my opinion we should aim for as many (GOOD and AGREED) changes as possible PROVIDED it improves things.imo, there is no need to change too much. Changing to much would also change strategies and build orders, that would kinda make a hole new game.
CA cost/huns CA cost should be ballanced,
so should the viking water bonuses/other civs abilities on water
Walls build speed/cost
Fireships/turles ships stroger/cheaper
pls add to poll: i don't care
thx
You made a good point here imho, it is very hard to balance a game for every possible playstyle.What you guys need to understand is that we can't call it balance since we have differents perceptions of the game, some for agressive style and others for defensive style.