Legends of Elveron
Forums for Legends of Elveron

Home Guide Forum Archive
FAQ SearchRegisterLogin



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]

Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 19:59 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 17:13
Posts: 1564
the Striker wrote:
Upon further consideration the changes will be fine i guess but I still think they're nerfed in the wrong way. And upon reading my posts it seems that I completely failed to explain what i thought was wrong with sylvans.

In my opinion, sylvans are too strong in the early mid round stages, with or without tavs, not even vamps or DD can really stand up to them, only the fact that theese races have such sui potential keeps them safe! The problem isn't the mods but the fact that they can have like tundrahe said 20% more raw military then the competition!

This is a very hard thing to balance, as a race with no hybrid units need military superiority in order to send big safely particularly when they are so open for shadowing, where many of the other fast races can send big keeping themselves safe with their retal power.


I agree. I would consider sylvan and DD very similar in terms of when they are strong and when they are weak. They both have very poor oop and are incredibly powerful week 2-w3. Around 3.5w in DD start loosing pace, sylvans a bit later and more slowly than DD. With the suggested tav change sylvans will loose pace very quickly when tavs become a big factor, more or less evening out the difference compared to DD.
When i speak of them as relatively similar of when they are strong we ofc need to keep in mind that they are strong in completely different ways. A DD has a LOT more flexibility than a sylvan (9hrs return SR, no day dependency, better potential turtle with SR), so a sylvan in order to compete with a DD need to be more powerful in terms of modded military.

I dont really want to change the fact that sylvans work this way. I think it is great that we have a good align race that isnt strong w1, but very powerful w2-4 and then fading. I do feel that the early-mid tavpushes were a bit too powerful (ie, with tavs a bit too strong w2-4) but i dont want to change the basic power setup of the race. They need a general nerf with a shorter round though. And i think the tav change does just this (Ie, nerf to midround tavstrats but not other midround strats; general nerf to the race through the weakening of endgame taving).

the Striker wrote:
As for barbarians, when i look at that race and compare it to a race like shinobi, I just get an overwhelming sense of meh.

they have 6.8p op with 2.6p turtle, decent but low for a bfeeder race. While their defense is fairly cheap early round, the ore prices together with the -15% ore production is just a killer late round. I really don't see how they can compete without a killer start abusing longboats and then being extremely lucky not getting all-ined.

I think the best way to "fix" them would be to reduce the ore prices and increase gold price to make them actually able to shine end round. This would perhaps, buff them too much for exp play though.

They just lack that overdrive other slow races got^^


I still maintain that they are a FW race with some extra features. I think they can be very powerful in a long round, especially if they are in a realm with good cover. For a short round however i think they need a general buff for sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 08:28 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 17:13
Posts: 1564
Updated the first post with the relic general change.

Please bring up ideas, suggestion or feedback.

Currently only two races really being discussed in the dev team.
* The issue of potentially adding additional nerf to sylvan (-5% pop)
* What to do with barbarian (general buff or overhaul)

There are also several general changes discussed still.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:59 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 20:55
Posts: 123
can someone explain why we are persisting with Mino. even xp players don't seem to be playing it too much now and the race has not proved to be any good till now for land. it has been in game for good number of rounds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 20:13 
Offline
Development Team Spokesperson
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 20:20
Posts: 6868
Location: Chi-Town
Minotaur has been successful in the past in its current form. It's a strong race with good execution and round adjustments.

_________________
The Age of Despair :: Round 2 :: 1 El Norte
The Age of Wisdom :: Round 4 :: 1 SmoochyWoochyPoochy
The Age of Wisdom :: Round 6 :: 1 Goblin Rings
The Age of Achievements :: Round 1 :: 1 Hufflepuff's Cup


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 21:02 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 17:13
Posts: 1564
Yes, i have confidence in minos as well. But like any other lowturtle slow race (barb for instance) you need to survive in order to shine. If we'd buff them and lots of people play them some would survive and then people would be complaining over an OP race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 09:56 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 17:13
Posts: 1564
Updated original post.

The buff to vamps for this round have been rolled back and Mino has been given a slight buff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 14:58 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 20:11
Posts: 616
Location: Sweden
Dante wrote:
I still maintain that they are a FW race with some extra features. I think they can be very powerful in a long round, especially if they are in a realm with good cover. For a short round however i think they need a general buff for sure.


Tbh i never played a round with FWs around since a very very long time ago, but if they are still in the same form as back then FWs could be played quite fast using a mix of spec O and pheonixes for Offense and those epic 8p defenders for defense.

on top of having no race penalties it wasn't too hard to actually keep growing with the top safely even if it was pure Bfeeds.

I haven't tried barb and not looked to much into it, but if flameweavers are like i remember them, i'd pick them any day over barbs.



I think giving barb the option to run a higher amount of 4/3 for more speed early would come a long way in making them more viable. Reducing the price on them like you suggested would make a good change i think


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 19:55 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 21:25
Posts: 1850
Location: Michigan
deleted


Last edited by Fergy on Mon Feb 06, 2012 20:45, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 20:45 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 21:25
Posts: 1850
Location: Michigan
List of possible barb changes:
  • Cheaper Legion
  • More dp on legion (to either 3.5 or 4.0)
  • Legion + 2 hr return, SR - 2 hr return
  • +5 pop bonus (now -5%)
  • +10 cas on longships (to 20 cas)
  • -10 cas on sisters
  • Spells to make longships return troops 5 hours faster (example: 1 longship returns 25 legion, 8 SR or any combination in between. 5 hrs quicker)
  • Make longships return raw OP instead of mod OP


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 08:39 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 17:13
Posts: 1564
Updated with barb +5% pop.

More changes may come. Barb still being discussed, and some suggest sylvan needs more nerf. Might also be good to point out that Ceek suggested Barb were fine with no change. Considering he said the same about sylvan before they too got +5% pop you guys all know what to expect. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 09:08 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 19:43
Posts: 4651
Why was forest troll nerfed?

I love forest trolls and their low casualties helped make them amazing.

_________________
Zehahaha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:31 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 22:23
Posts: 366
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Acerac wrote:
Why was forest troll nerfed?

I love forest trolls and their low casualties helped make them amazing.


Forest troll was nerfed, because he is too good for shorter rounds compared to other troll units. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 15:32 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 20:55
Posts: 123
did anyone else find kidnapping difficult this round ? I had a hard time keeping pits full in the initial part when I was paying attention.. so many kingdoms were running spires and the rest were shins or were kidnapping themselves


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 15:48 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 17:13
Posts: 1564
M80 wrote:
did anyone else find kidnapping difficult this round ? I had a hard time keeping pits full in the initial part when I was paying attention.. so many kingdoms were running spires and the rest were shins or were kidnapping themselves


Yes, it was difficult.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 23:01 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 19:43
Posts: 4651
Amuril wrote:
Acerac wrote:
Why was forest troll nerfed?

I love forest trolls and their low casualties helped make them amazing.


Forest troll was nerfed, because he is too good for shorter rounds compared to other troll units. :wink:

*Grins*

Completely valid. 10/10 is such a sexy size.

_________________
Zehahaha


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  





Elveron - the online strategy game
Elveron phpBB3 style by Ulf Frisk and Michael Schaeffer
Copyright © Ulf Frisk, Michael Schaeffer 2007.
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group