* Expansions are the best thing which happened to aoe2
* Expansion's balance is great
* Cysion knows a lot about aoe2 and is amazing
I agree with all of those, good post!
* Expansions are the best thing which happened to aoe2
* Expansion's balance is great
* Cysion knows a lot about aoe2 and is amazing
So now we are ganging up on influenza just because his opinion doesn't allure to popular beliefs and instead of objectively challenging his opinion on balance we resort to personal attacks, great.
even though I agree with the points, those are not "truths" but still opinions unless you have evidence to support these claimsHere are some truth as we like them.
* Expansions are the best thing which happened to aoe2
* Expansion's balance is great
* Cysion knows a lot about aoe2 and is amazing
I went after him for his choice of worlds and the tone he had towards the developers in many of his posts.
I told my view on balance, but his response was only about my criticism of his tone ...
I never said his opinion on balance was invalid (unlike him).
I attacked him for being unable to voice his criticism in a helpful and useful way.
And of course I might have exaggerated with my use of worlds as well.
even though I agree with the points, those are not "truths" but still opinions unless you have evidence to support these claims
I went after him for his choice of worlds and the tone he had towards the developers in many of his posts.
I told my view on balance, but his response was only about my criticism of his tone ...
I never said his opinion on balance was invalid (unlike him).
I attacked him for being unable to voice his criticism in a helpful and useful way.
And of course I might have exaggerated with my use of worlds as well.
So now we are ganging up on influenza just because his opinion doesn't allure to popular beliefs and instead of objectively challenging his opinion on balance we resort to personal attacks, great.
First of all saying developers „vomit“ out stuff isn‘t helping your argument, it only drives people away from openly thinking about it.This is not the first time you are doing this. Not everyone communicates in a sugar coating way and neither it is the most effective form of communication even when delivering criticism.
You have no objective basis for compelling other people to NOT communicate in a clear, direct manner and sugar coat everything to dilute the point.
You are actually completely wrong on every count! Impressive. I have never seen so much discussion before regarding my posts. In fact, since being disrespectful to the developers and the community seems to work so well, in the future I will up the ante and be even more insulting.First of all saying developers „vomit“ out stuff isn‘t helping your argument, it only drives people away from openly thinking about it.
This is my main point of criticism, nothing else.
If you want to be taken serious in a discussion, you shouldn‘t distespect the other side.
This is a basic standard of communication.
I never said due to the way he expresses his opinions his ideas sre invalid, I said that this is why nobody seems to care what he says ...
You are actually completely wrong on every count! Impressive. I have never seen so much discussion before regarding my posts. In fact, since being disrespectful to the developers and the community seems to work so well, in the future I will up the ante and be even more insulting.
Thanks for clearly demonstrating exactly what I've been talking about this entire time. I posted an idea for fire galleys to return to their regular 3 attack vs fishing ships when reaching castle age. Did cysion say: "Why is that important?" or "I don't see a reason for that." or even "How could you possibly suggest something so ridiculous?!" Nope. He just assumed I had absolutely no real reason whatsoever for my request and moved on. Next!And nobody cared about what you actually had to say regarding balance ...
You idea with fire galleys getting stronger when reaching castle age was actually fine, Cysion replied and said it wasn't intended.
So what else do you want? The developer answead you question and wasn't convinced your idea was necessary for a good balance.
This should not be a problem, at least it wouldn't be a problem for most people.
Instead after that happened you decided to indirectly attack the developers in your next post about balance.
You are (sorry for the direct word) disgusting in what you say.
Water 1v1 is indeed less micro intensive, but the 4v4 teamgames we saw in ECL were way better than all AOC water games I ever saw.
DauT likes WK water more. And so do I. Lol. This despite him actually (with TyRanT) being perhaps the best at AoC water...In this case you either:
1, Have seen very few AOC water games
2, Lack all understanding of water maps
And to be fair Flu has a point. I don't always agree with him but the devs (whoever decided on the original WK balance) created massively overpowered civilizations to sell the expansions. That much is obvious if you have read the tech tree.
That does remove the credibility of whichever devs did do that.
And to be fair Flu has a point. I don't always agree with him but the devs (whoever decided on the original WK balance) created massively overpowered civilizations to sell the expansions. That much is obvious if you have read the tech tree.
Daut was never really known for galley micro, which of course was a big part of the feudal galley wars. So daut preferring WK water is not without its biases xd.DauT likes WK water more. And so do I. Lol. This despite him actually (with TyRanT) being perhaps the best at AoC water...
Thanks for clearly demonstrating exactly what I've been talking about this entire time. I posted an idea for fire galleys to return to their regular 3 attack vs fishing ships when reaching castle age. Did cysion say: "Why is that important?" or "I don't see a reason for that." or even "How could you possibly suggest something so ridiculous?!" Nope. He just assumed I had absolutely no real reason whatsoever for my request and moved on. Next!
Now if you think me prefacing my response with "Just because you don't see a reason that doesn't mean that there isn't one, lol." is ATTACKING THE DEVELOPERS then I really don't even know what to tell you. You must have appointed yourself as outrage police and consider it a moral duty to ensure that no one is slighted in any minute way. And by "no one" I mean exclusively those people already in charge. I.e. you have an obvious bias in favor of Cysion and co.
In this case you either:
1, Have seen very few AOC water games
2, Lack all understanding of water maps
And to be fair Flu has a point. I don't always agree with him but the devs (whoever decided on the original WK balance) created massively overpowered civilizations to sell the expansions. That much is obvious if you have read the tech tree.
That does remove the credibility of whichever devs did do that.
You just assume, that he assumed that.
No, actually I just read exactly what he said, roflAah, no, that's reserved for the upgrade. No real reason to unlock it automatically.
Did cysion say: "Why is that important?" or "I don't see a reason for that
No real reason to unlock it automatically
How is pure galley spam better than longboats, fireships and galley combined, as we saw in ECL?
@Influenza
How is this not an answer to your initial question?
Dude, he said, he saw nor reason to unlock it, you then gave a reason, and he didn't response again as he said all he had to say (no reason for him to unlock the extra dmg when reaching castle age)
To sum it up:
You asked a question and he answered and even gave his reasoning why not to do so ...
Where exactly is your problem again?
What would you have wanted him to say instead?
Should he have responded once more, that he sees no reason to change it, after you gave your opinion, that it should be unlocked with reaching castle age?
well he actually did as you just quoted yourself
You idea with fire galleys getting stronger when reaching castle age was actually fine, Cysion replied and said it wasn't intended.
So what else do you want? The developer answead you question and wasn't convinced your idea was necessary for a good balance.
This should not be a problem, at least it wouldn't be a problem for most people.
Instead after that happened you decided to indirectly attack the developers in your next post about balance.
This is leading nowhere ...Dude, you either have early onset dementia or you are so vague in your posts that I literally have no idea what the **** you are referring to half the time.
THIS is your original comment:
You said that after the developer answered my question, I decided to attack the developers in MY NEXT POST ABOUT BALANCE.
My next post about balance was in that very same thread, leading me to believe, as I already mentioned, that you were taking issue with this: "Just because you don't see a reason that doesn't mean that there isn't one, lol."
Now it seems that wasn't at all what you had an issue with, you decided to bring up my first post in this thread again for some strange reason. You are just talking in circles, it's a waste of time and giving me a headache trying to decipher what you are even saying. CU