You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.84 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Upcoming TWC Patch - Spain nerfed!!1111!!!11
Bottom
Topic Subject:Upcoming TWC Patch - Spain nerfed!!1111!!!11
« Previous Page  1 2 3 4  Next Page »
Angel Walker
Skirmisher
(id: Just a player)
posted 11-07-06 01:22 PM EDT (US)         
Ok, not really

Quote:

CLIENT FIXES

* Bonus from the Agents card reduced from +200% hitpoints to +50%.
* The 8 Spy home city cards for the British and Portuguese moved to the third age from the second age. If you have this card in your deck, the card will be moved to the third age in your deck as well.
* Cards that reduce the wood cost of buildings changed to prevent building cost from being zero or negative.
* Wallenstein contract now affects the new WarChiefs mercenary units.
* Queued shipments from your home city are now removed properly during revolution.
* British team animal fattening cards now work as described.
* Reduced longbow ranged attack by 2 and hand attack by 1.
* Fixed a possible exploit with shipments from team cards.
* Fixed several new cards that did not have a shipment cost.

NETWORK AND ESO FIXES

* Fixed a bug with stats uploading
* Fixed an issue that caused some users to be stuck on the “Connecting to ESO…” dialog box.
* Statistics window rendering fixes.

Here is the Link (for german noobs only!)

Thanks to Kastor for posting the news and warning me by MSN, so I could post it first. Now I'll read what it says


ESO - Walker

>> Napoleonic Era --> Visit their Homepage!
"Holy *****" > Thunder (Ensemble Studios)

Retired from AoE3. But I do play AoK HD in Steam now and then.

[This message has been edited by Just a player (edited 11-07-2006 @ 01:41 PM).]

AuthorReplies:
TarsTarkas
Skirmisher
posted 11-07-06 07:37 PM EDT (US)     51 / 84       

Quoted from Beatnik Joe:

I may have to create a dummy deck to try this out... I may have to create a dummy deck to try this out...

Please do Joe! and then tell us. I'm curious as to what will happen, but not having any cities over level 31, I cant test it myself.


" Studies have shown that people who say "Gameplay>Realism" are less likely to find girlfriends or lead a successful, rational life in the real world.

To see these studies for yourself, please click here."

~ Cy Marlayne

TheRomans
Skirmisher
posted 11-07-06 08:36 PM EDT (US)     52 / 84       
I don't know why some of you are like "ZOMG NERFED LONGBOWS!!!1111 BRITS UP!!!!!1111" When longbows are still the best general LI. You are forgetting that longbows counter heavy infantry just as well as skirmishers. All ES did was make them weaker in melee and bring them down to skirmisher level.

New Base Stats
Longbow:
Damage:
15 Ranged, 22 maximum range
10 hand
10 siege, 6 maximum range
ROF:
1.5 ranged
1.5 hand

Skirm:
Damage:
15 Ranged 2xHI, 20 maximum range
6 hand 2xHI
12 siege, 6 maximum range
ROF
3.0 ranged
1.5 hand

Longbows do 2, 15 damage shots, every 1.5 seconds.
30 damage every 3 seconds.

Skirmishers do 1, 30 damage shot to HI every 3.0 seconds.
30 damage every 3 seconds to HI.

Its only after CIR that gunpowder LI become better at countering HI. Also considering that longbows get 2 more range than skirmishers(4 more with yeomen) making them able to get more shots off while the HI is advancing. Overall, if you nerfed longbows base stats to make them worse LATE game than gunpowder LI, boost their auto attack range to 22, and 26 with yeomen card(if possible).

Brtnboarder495
Skirmisher
posted 11-07-06 09:49 PM EDT (US)     53 / 84       
*Sigh*

First off longbows have to deal at LEAST three arrows before their ROF pays off:

Time Skirm Longbow
0 seconds X O
1.5 seconds O X
3.0 seconds X X
4.5 seconds O X
6 seconds X X

X = fire, O = windup/reload time

So after 6 seconds a longbow will have gotten ONE more round in than a skirm. Now let's consider some other factors. Longbows perform worse against HI than skirms, and longbows lose to skirms in smaller numbers. So while skirms perform better against HI and LI, longbows are more versatile. Now let's not forget skirms have more HP, and can hit and run. Can longbows? Nope. The ability to hit and run is PARAMOUNT.

So when you take everything into consideration, and that a longbow should perform better than a skirmisher since it's a UU, things don't look as awesome as they first did.


Gameranger: _NiGhThAwK_
brandnizzle
Skirmisher
posted 11-07-06 10:52 PM EDT (US)     54 / 84       
Allfallzdown, we're aware your a brit and that youll defend l bows till your last breath.

but they were OP, its okay, move on.

KingSteve3721
Skirmisher
posted 11-07-06 11:47 PM EDT (US)     55 / 84       
@brtn....


Uhh, ever considered that longbows cost less overall AND cost food+wood, plus they cost no gold? Noooooo....


[FeaR]{KingSteve3721}
“I love my name of honor, more than I fear death.”- Julius Caesar
"The Pope! How many divisions has he got?"- Joseph Stalin
"The hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."- Napoleon Bonaparte
"Dogs, would you live forever?"- Frederick the Great (addressing retreating Prussians at the Battle of Kolin)
TheRomans
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 01:31 AM EDT (US)     56 / 84       
You can say all you want about the weaknesses of longbows, but equal numbers of longbows beats skirms.
1 Longbow>1 skirm
2 longbows>2 skirms
5 longbows>5 skirms
50 longbows>50 skirms

Don't believe me? Try it in the editor. Right now longbows do 34 damage in the time a skirm can do 15, after this patch it becomes 30 damage in the time it takes a skirm to do 15. Longbows are better vs heavy infantry because of more range and faster ROF. They have set-up time, yes I know that, but once they get going, once again Longbows>skirms. Like I said earlier, gunpowder LI only becomes way better against HI after CIR. Before that, longbows are better in almost every way. If your longbows are losing to HI, it's because he had more HI than you had longbows or because you didn't take full advantage of longbow's 22 range. distracting HI with pikes makes longbows very dangerous to fight.

If the nerf really bothers you that bad, keep resigning until you get a map with seminole and you can get the 25% archer tech for 18.75 damage, and if it really just drives you to the point of insanity, play vanilla AoE3 where this nerf isn't happening and there are no natives to counter.

AuxiliA MieS
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 02:09 AM EDT (US)     57 / 84       
@brtnboarder are the british a weak early game civ now? Why don`t you try portuguese, then you would know what a weak colonial civ really is...at least brits still get their longbows, even nerferd, while ports have absolutely nothing in colonial to throw against those natives. Well, they always have early dragoons, 5 of which might even kill 1 axe rider!

M3 15 ur l0rd 4and m45t3r. Y0us4 g0tt4 d0 wh4t 1 t3ll y3r.
TjRome
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 09:45 AM EDT (US)     58 / 84       
Something else that makes longbows better than skirms: They are less likely to over-kill. That is one reason they are so great in mass: they are very efficent.
Unthinking_Pain
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 11:06 AM EDT (US)     59 / 84       
Any comparison of Longbow vs. Skirm should remember CIR. CIR Skirms kill HI far far better than Longbows.
Adam42
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 11:55 AM EDT (US)     60 / 84       

Quote:

*Sigh*

First off longbows have to deal at LEAST three arrows before their ROF pays off:

No, longbows fire 2 arrows to skirm's one. At 0.0 seconds, the skirm fires, at 1.5 seconds the longbow fires it's first shot after set up animation, and at 3 seconds they both fire at the same time. At 3 seconds they both have fired 2 shots and thus dealt the same damage. From this point longbows do twice the damage output. And that's not counting their range advantage, and their cost advantage.

Quote:

So after 6 seconds a longbow will have gotten ONE more round in than a skirm. Now let's consider some other factors. Longbows perform worse against HI than skirms, and longbows lose to skirms in smaller numbers.

LOL! Did you just say that? Longbows utterly slaughter skirms smaller numbers or not, and do better against HI because of their equal damage output and superior range.

Quote:

The ability to hit and run is PARAMOUNT.

This ability is paramount for skirmishers, but not for longbows. They don't need to hit and run to be able to kill cost effectively almost every unit, while skirms need to hit and run to be effective even against the units they directly counter.
Strong Man
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 12:00 PM EDT (US)     61 / 84       
Some of you missed what I said last time: ES intended to make things arguable such that this game would be discussed more and be the topic. And I know Ports will stick there for another year or two.
Unthinking_Pain
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 12:42 PM EDT (US)     62 / 84       

Quote:

First off longbows have to deal at LEAST three arrows before their ROF pays off:

No, longbows fire 2 arrows to skirm's one. At 0.0 seconds, the skirm fires, at 1.5 seconds the longbow fires it's first shot after set up animation, and at 3 seconds they both fire at the same time. At 3 seconds they both have fired 2 shots and thus dealt the same damage. From this point longbows do twice the damage output. And that's not counting their range advantage, and their cost advantage.


You just backed him up, not disproved. Notice he said the longbow doesn't get a damage bonus until the third arrow. Notice that your argument has the Skirm and longbow equal at the longbow's second arrow.

And CIR Skirm >> Longbow at beating HI.

Ranged non-HI infantry need a damage nerf against melee cavalry. That way melee cavalry is the true counter, and we can stop quibbling about which bow beats which skirm in the giant hordes that everyone builds.

[This message has been edited by Unthinking_Pain (edited 11-08-2006 @ 12:43 PM).]

Adam42
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 03:10 PM EDT (US)     63 / 84       
Afd said that longbows have to use 3 arrows before their ROF pays off, I said it's 2.
Wabbitkiller
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 04:23 PM EDT (US)     64 / 84       
Before the LBow nerf you had unit that was CHEAPER than skirms that could kill BETTER than skirms.

Saying that the nerfing of Lbows is unfair is a crock of BS. If LBows weren't OP, then why does every brit player spam them and make virtually NOTHING else? They do so because LBows WERE OP, that's why.

Uncle_Joe
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 05:05 PM EDT (US)     65 / 84       

Quote:

Saying that the nerfing of Lbows is unfair is a crock of BS. If LBows weren't OP, then why does every brit player spam them and make virtually NOTHING else? They do so because LBows WERE OP, that's why.

Personally, I think they were OP in AoE3. But in TWC? Who knows? If they were so OP, why did ES essentially clone the unit AND give it x2 vs HI (and 5 more hits, and a better upgrade path)?

IMO, LBows should have been nerfed, but vs Cav, not vs everything. If they did .5 vs Cav, that would make it impossible to build nothing but Lbows.

Its just another case of ES imparting a needed nerf, but in a bass-ackwards way.

Wabbitkiller
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 05:17 PM EDT (US)     66 / 84       
The problem with cav in AoE3 is due to the fact that their pathing is TERRIBLE. Hell, a blind man without a cane can get from point A to point B more effeciently than cav can. While LBows are also a lottle OP damage-wise vs cav, the biggest problem is their pathing. Nothing sucks more than watching 10 hussars getting slaughtered while they helplessly...and stupidly wander around aimlessly.
dejanh
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 05:56 PM EDT (US)     67 / 84       
To be honest, Spanish needed a nerf. Brits did not. The "Everybody-screams-OP" longbows are really not OP at all. With good raiding you can stop the brit from booming to much and as long as there is not too much boom you can stop his lbows with hussars or cuirass...maybe for civs that do not get hussars they were too good. I really only play French and Spanish vs. Brits and that does perfectly fine. Ottomans did ok too and so did Russian because they can mass units like crazy...

(\__/) This is bunny.
(O.o ) Copy him in your signature to
(> < ) help him conquer the world!
TOO_Saruman
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 05:58 PM EDT (US)     68 / 84       
i have to agree with adam...whoever says lbows are crappy now is definitly biased. I mean, now they beat nearly every unit (they own cetan BADLY) in the game. Just some Heavy Cav and artillery beat them. Now their counters will beat them, and they will still be a great unit.

ESO: empirejoao3
Clan:Proud
"You know the world is going crazy when the best golfer in the world is black, the best rapper is white, and the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese" LOL!!!
brandnizzle
Skirmisher
posted 11-08-06 06:12 PM EDT (US)     69 / 84       
I need the cetan bow to be nerfed.

I need it.

Beatnik Joe
Skirmisher
posted 11-10-06 05:43 AM EDT (US)     70 / 84       

Quoted from Beatnik Joe:

what happens to decks that are already full of fortress cards and have "8 spies" decked in colonial?

Quoted from TarsTarkas:

Please do Joe! and then tell us. I'm curious as to what will happen, but not having any cities over level 31, I cant test it myself.

All right, I built such a deck and checked it post-upgrade! Final result: A deck with 11 cards in fortress! Not especially practical, but cool nonetheless -- didn't think this was possible.

If you're interested, feel free to check it out yourself -- it's in my "Beatnikshire" home city, in a deck named "Upgrade THIS". My ESO ID is BeatnikJoe. The deck has 11/25 cards, all in Fortress age.


Strategies:
- BWKiC - A British Fast Fortress strategy
- The Aztec Scout Slam- An Envoy Rush, Native-Style
W_Eddy
Skirmisher
posted 11-10-06 06:59 AM EDT (US)     71 / 84       
i cant believe the spanish arnt nerfed yet.. they're getting ridiculously OP its not funny anymore
Omnizero
Skirmisher
posted 11-10-06 03:11 PM EDT (US)     72 / 84       
Well, if the dutch are allowed into fortress with halaberders, the Spanish lancers become very ineffective
TarsTarkas
Skirmisher
posted 11-10-06 03:21 PM EDT (US)     73 / 84       

Quoted from Beatnik Joe:

All right, I built such a deck and checked it post-upgrade! Final result: A deck with 11 cards in fortress! Not especially practical, but cool nonetheless -- didn't think this was possible.

Thanks Joe! Never destroy that deck, there may come a time when you need 11 cards in fortress

Thanks again for testing it out.


" Studies have shown that people who say "Gameplay>Realism" are less likely to find girlfriends or lead a successful, rational life in the real world.

To see these studies for yourself, please click here."

~ Cy Marlayne

[This message has been edited by TarsTarkas (edited 11-10-2006 @ 03:52 PM).]

ultimitsu
Skirmisher
posted 11-10-06 03:50 PM EDT (US)     74 / 84       

Quote:

You can say all you want about the weaknesses of longbows, but equal numbers of longbows beats skirms.
1 Longbow>1 skirm
2 longbows>2 skirms
5 longbows>5 skirms
50 longbows>50 skirms


you know...

a musketeer beats a pikeman, does that make muskt a better HI?

a hussar beats a lancer, does that make hussar a better melee cav?

a Xbow beats a skimisher, does that make xbow a better LI?

what makes a good unit is not whether it beats other units of the same type, its whether it fills its role better.

skirmishers kill HI better, especially after CIR, hits and runs a lot better, raids better too. they were not weaker as a LI.

if longbows were OP then British should have been OP, but were they?

in fact if anyone was OP, it was spanish, god knows why spanish got a rods boost.

Uncle_Joe
Skirmisher
posted 11-10-06 04:44 PM EDT (US)     75 / 84       

Quote:

if longbows were OP then British should have been OP, but were they?

Thats it in a nutshell for me. I dont recall seeing the Brits with some high percentage of wins or high percentage of usage at the upper end of the skill ladder. With the exception of the totally lame Agents, Britain has never been a particularly strong Civ.

So thats why I question their timing on this change. Is it because Britain had a high win percentage in TWC due to Agents? Otherwise, why nerf a Civ that has never been considered a 'top' civ (and has always been considered relatively weak in the early game)?

To me, a FAR better solution would have been to blanket reduce LI damage to Cav or the converse (Cav get a bonus vs LI). That would fix all of the current 'OP' LI units and make a lot more sense in their counter system.

« Previous Page  1 2 3 4  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames