Penguinick
Mortal
posted 27 June 2003 09:45 PM
EDT (US)
2 / 54
I think Ra is still good! He has very strong economy and a god path that can support both barrack units and migdol units. Yeah, maybe they nerfed him a little too hard awhile back... but still, he's plenty powerful.
lessthanjakeman9
Mortal
posted 28 June 2003 00:10 AM
EDT (US)
6 / 54
Ok well my thought on ra is that a lot of 1600's try to do a FH. The FH doesnt work so they all lose. Also no one tries to make a new strat with him because they are all scared away after the patch. As for zeus how could it be because he is played by all newbs. If they are newbs they are playing other newbs. Sure its possible that they start at 1600 and go down since they are newbs then change gods but thats not all of it. Also Hades is no better than ra.
raptor attack
Mortal
posted 28 June 2003 07:50 PM
EDT (US)
8 / 54
Prankster, you are thinking of set. Look at the top ten. To whoever frowned at me... I am 2-0 with Ra. I didn't even lose with him, but I can tell he lacks. Set and Ises are so much better.
Sexy_DeaN
Banned
posted 28 June 2003 09:36 PM
EDT (US)
10 / 54
nerf ra, give set no house bonus and 50 starting rhinos yeahhhhh
RoD_ReaVer
Mortal
posted 29 June 2003 01:24 AM
EDT (US)
13 / 54
i jsut got to 1700 today with 100% ra and 100% win% just for fun, i could get higher, but the day just ended in hawii...
paul187
Mortal
posted 01 July 2003 11:13 AM
EDT (US)
15 / 54
bah. People used to say Set was weak way back- before people learned how to use him. I agree Ra is second tier, but I disagree on him being far the weakest. I think Zeus is weaker- marginally, and maybe Hades.
This game is a lot closer to balanced than many people think.
Slogo
Mortal
posted 01 July 2003 11:38 AM
EDT (US)
17 / 54
Set *WAS* weak back then, 1 hersir could kill off all the animal. Once they took away the bonus he was ok but still not looked at well so they lowered animal pop and well that was that.
CokaCola_KiD
Banned
posted 01 July 2003 12:07 PM
EDT (US)
18 / 54
Yeah Id say this Ra is dead thing is a pile of crap. Im finding that I can get the same rating with every civ. Fact is Ra has got Econo that should win games for you easy.
lessthanjakeman9
Mortal
posted 01 July 2003 12:58 PM
EDT (US)
20 / 54
phoenix in your thread people were saying how ra was wierd and they couldnt get in a rhythm with him. THye said they were much more comfortable with isis. Ive had the opposite effect i have a great rhythm with ra and i cant get comfortable with isis. I think its just what eggy civ you started out using. I started out using ra (1.05) and got used to him. With isis i always feel like i have to tell the priest to empower gold.
fettmops
Mortal
posted 01 July 2003 01:23 PM
EDT (US)
22 / 54
I think the logic of this thread is flawed, and shows that the originator is noob. this is how it goes, Stats show RA win % is low = RA is not good. I have small field mice with better intuitive logic then that. A better question would be to ask good players (1800+) their opinion on RA. Then decide based on expert opinions, not holbert stats which have tons of unknown variables to them.
I would have to agree with the above post that RA definitly shines in multiplayer games which go longer. He doens't have any killer strats in the classic period, but that doesn't mean he is bad.
CokaCola_KiD
Banned
posted 01 July 2003 11:23 PM
EDT (US)
25 / 54
You know maybe this guys got a point I played ra today and droped 100 points. I got beat up by norse players real bad and an isis player too.