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

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.92 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » murms vs ulfs
Bottom
Topic Subject:murms vs ulfs
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 18 April 2004 02:16 PM EDT (US)         
Played around a little in the editor to see if atl really are as OP as some ppl would say.. This is just a little test but still.

I simply pitted norse and atlantean mainline inf vs each other, to see if they were somewhat equal, and hereīs the results..

I only tested unupgraded, classical inf. Murms cost 5 res more, so I put 16 murms vs 17 ulfs - equal resource wise (murms are smaller pop wise)

On average, 9 murms survived, with 60-70% hp left.

OUCH

Fer christ sakes, I really do hate to bitch, but wtf is this? Maybe ulfs can get more upgrades, but seriously? They are the exact same unit - mainline inf good vs cav, and move at roughly the same speed - and over half of the murmillos survive!??! I donīt know if this reflects the crappiness of norse units or the strenghth of atlantean ones, but it hurts me as a Norse player at heart to see this, it just reinforces my experience from in-game - when playing norse, donīt attack any military units unless you really, really have to - cheiro/turma will hold up damn well to pure rc, and it gets more annoying with every norse nerf.. Might add some tests to this thread later, want to know what others think about this first though..

AuthorReplies:
Kumar Shah
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 08:38 AM EDT (US)     31 / 92       
The reason RCs need to be in there, is because, they would be a part of the Norse army in classical.

Can you do the Double Yoda?
A sexual move, where you do a double backflip, insert your penis into the orifice of choice, and scream, "Afraid are you?"
NIB
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 09:04 AM EDT (US)     32 / 92       
Compare the cost of hunting dogs for gaia and the cost of hunting dogs for loki. Damn gaia is op. Let me say it 1 more time in case you are too stupid to understand

YOU CAN NOT DIRECTLY COMPARE THINGS FROM DIFFERENT CIVS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARENT MEANT TO BE BALANCED ON 1 TO 1 BASE, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED ON AN OVERAL BASE.

If you cant understand this, then i feel sorry for you for no grasping how complicated game mechanics can be. The thing is that the game is balanced. Ulfsarks are balanced. And murmillos are balanced. How can i prove that? Statistics prove it. My huge in game experience proves it.

Tas need a slight multiplier increase against murmillos and fanatics(or make fanatics not to be able to get multiplier against tas). And maybe a little help getting a titan out.


ESO name : Relaxing

Eisai ellinas? Tote ela sto www.noobwars.gr.

Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 09:05 AM EDT (US)     33 / 92       
Well, katapeltes would be part of any atty army.. And this isnīt a discussion of typical classical armies, this is purely about the Norse and Atlantean mainline infantry, and why i think Norse get a very bad deal. But Iīll go do full combos now, this is getting kinda fun.


NIB, youīre really succeeding in making me crack up.. I canīt compare units 1v1 since the whole civ is supposed to be balanced.. ah, ok:

Atlantean = A
Norse = N

A econ is better than N
A mainline inf is better than N
A GPs are (mostly) better than N
A antiinf is better than N
A cav is better than N
A anticav is better than N
A have archers
A have a unit with bonus vs all (?) N
N donīt have decent ranged siege, and villies get a bonus vs their siege
Aīs heroic siege doesnīt get countered by vills
N have more expensive barracks and docks

Of course, N get something to make up for this - TAs do hack damage..

And comparing Loki and Gaia econ techs is naturally retarded, since Gaia has a big bonus there. Comparing Loki ulfs to Gaia murms isnīt stupid, since no civ gets a bonus in that department.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-19-2004 @ 09:16 AM).]

Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 09:43 AM EDT (US)     34 / 92       
Tested full classical armies this time. Gaia vs Loki.

10 murm, 4 cheiros
vs
10 rc, 9 ta

Outcome varies a lot. But wit a little micro, atl come out greatly on top. Norse win if rc can flank.

15 murm, 2 cheiro
vs
10 rc, 9 ta

Atl. win by far most of the time.

13 katapelts, 2 cheiro
vs
10 rc, 9 ta

Atl win, sometimes with half the units surviving (with micro). Without any micro, Norse might win.


The tests didnīt let the cheiros take full advantage of their great range.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-19-2004 @ 09:43 AM).]

Kumar Shah
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 10:20 AM EDT (US)     35 / 92       
Tested full classical armies this time. Gaia vs Loki. No infantry/Cavalry upgrades.

10 murm, 4 cheiros
vs
10 rc, 9 ta

First with me as Norse: RCs microed on Cheiros first, Norse won with 3 TAs and 3 RCs left.

Second time with me as Atlanteans, Cheiros microed on infantry. Norse again won with 3 TAs and 3 RCs left. Cheiros were also the first one to take shots at range.

Repeated tests, 2 times. Each time Norse came out on top, with atleast 4 military units remaining.


Can you do the Double Yoda?
A sexual move, where you do a double backflip, insert your penis into the orifice of choice, and scream, "Afraid are you?"

[This message has been edited by Kumar Shah (edited 04-19-2004 @ 10:22 AM).]

NIB
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 10:24 AM EDT (US)     36 / 92       

Quote:

NIB, youīre really succeeding in making me crack up.. I canīt compare units 1v1 since the whole civ is supposed to be balanced

Well yes since you obviously fail to recognise the complexity and the fuctionality of game mechanics, it is better to just ignore direct comparisons. And if you want a little help to make conclusions about game balance, go read Futurehermit's statistical post which is very good IMO. You can find that post here. Now this post has some points in it and it is based on the best representation of the game mechanics, the in game stats.

Any attempts to do 1vs1 or even multiple unit comparisons are laughable to say the least.


ESO name : Relaxing

Eisai ellinas? Tote ela sto www.noobwars.gr.

[This message has been edited by NIB (edited 04-19-2004 @ 10:26 AM).]

Counter_Master
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 10:29 AM EDT (US)     37 / 92       
were you testing this in the editor? If so, did you set the tech status for both teams so that they are in classical? If you did not, ulfs will only have 3 attack, and that would explain a lot.

.o.o Counter_Master o.o.
Independent Scenario Designer
Current Project: Alexandria
I don't got time for pain! The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!' --- Terry Tate


Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 11:33 AM EDT (US)     38 / 92       
Kumar, like I said results can vary - but test it again, constantly microing cheiros the way a good player would, and on average atl. will win.. Iīm not sure if you can record editor tests like you can with MP games, if you know a way tell me and Iīll post a rec. Either way, 4 cheiros was a little much, substituting 2 for murms is better for the A.

And NIB, really, youīre grasping for straws here. First you say that 1v1 tests are useless. Then I do a realistic combo test, which is also useless.. perhaps you have a better way of testing units..?

As for the stats page, Iīll quote Twain, or whoever it was: "There are 3 kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics" -

If all greek units were reduced to 1 dam/second, they would have a nearly 50% winning percentage 5 months from now, if people kept playing them. Think about it before you ask me to explain.. Iīm sure you can figure it out. And experts seem to like Norse, but that doesnīt mean that without Thor ragna/fl.weap, theyīre a balanced civ. I play Norse most of the time myself, and I have been very high in ratings - but I donīt play them because I think theyīre the best - I play them cause I think theyīre fun to play. When I couldnīt get higher with Loki in Vanilla at first, I just switched to Poseidon and went up 100 points to 1850, without having much experience with greeks.

EDIT: Counter, Iīm aware of ulfs having 3 attack in archaic, and like I said before, units were classical.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-19-2004 @ 11:36 AM).]

GRUNT
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 12:06 PM EDT (US)     39 / 92       
(off topic, but not big enough to post a thread :P)

under Ra or Set, a fully upgraded Spearmen with all the myth techs (just Greatest of Fifty and Spear on the Horizon, really) as well as armoury techs can actually beat ODIN'S fully upgraded Jarl with all the armoury and myth techs (even with ring-giver included!)

'Course, the spearmen only survived with 1 hitpoint (I ran several trials, too), but it shows how cost-effective fully upgraded Horus Spearmen are . They even beat those nasty 300+ hp Jarls! o____0

And considering how they're cheap and only cost 2 food, they rule!

Then again, what can I say? I'm a supporter of Eggie infantry power ^_______^. Usually I stick with Ra, but I want to try uber infantry with Set.....just worried that I can't get a good econ running without Ra's empowering priests or Rain :P.

Kumar Shah
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 12:11 PM EDT (US)     40 / 92       

Quote:

As for the stats page, Iīll quote Twain, or whoever it was: "There are 3 kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics" -

Good quote, but not really usable here. This is a game, the game stats don't lie. If they say something, 99% of the time it is true (unless there is a typo).

Quote:

Kumar, like I said results can vary - but test it again, constantly microing cheiros the way a good player would, and on average atl. will win.. Iīm not sure if you can record editor tests like you can with MP games, if you know a way tell me and Iīll post a rec. Either way, 4 cheiros was a little much, substituting 2 for murms is better for the A.

You didn't post any results for that specific test, just merely said "Atl can win with micro", so I posted my results. Now you also have been constantly trying to prove your point by stating and repeating about how good of a player you are, as you can see at the moment there are 3 people in the top 10 with Norse (2 Thor, 1 Loki).


Can you do the Double Yoda?
A sexual move, where you do a double backflip, insert your penis into the orifice of choice, and scream, "Afraid are you?"
Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 12:51 PM EDT (US)     41 / 92       
I havenīt stated that Iīm some ultra-expert player to get my point across - but when you say things along the likes of "maybe you donīt use upgrades when you play, but many people do", I do feel like I should point out that Iīm not a noob. And I know that Norse can still hersir rush, and that Thor is good - If youīre an inter++ player.

And stats certainly donīt lie - but you seem to, along with a lot of people, read things out of them and make conclusions that arenīt true - like the fact that Kronos having a relatively low winning percentage would mean heīs not a very good god, or that TA are great since they have a high survival %.. (Iīm not saying you have said just those things yourself, but Iīve heard ppl making those arguments.) I think Norse as a whole has a higher percentage of experts than other civs since theyīre tougher to play, and they have some very effective strats - Thor ragna/titan/fl.w and Loki hersir rush - but that doesnīt mean that the civ as a whole could not use some fine-tuning.. if you want to look at stats, the absence of Odin in higher ratings would prove that.


EDIT:And about the tests, I wrote that atl would win greatly if they were properly microed - I played that scenario 6-7 times, and mostly, atl won with 2-3 cheiros and 3-4 murms left. But micro and luck will mean a lot.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-19-2004 @ 12:57 PM).]

Kumar Shah
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 01:17 PM EDT (US)     42 / 92       

Quote:

And stats certainly donīt lie - but you seem to, along with a lot of people, read things out of them and make conclusions that arenīt true - like the fact that Kronos having a relatively low winning percentage would mean heīs not a very good god, or that TA are great since they have a high survival %.. (Iīm not saying you have said just those things yourself, but Iīve heard ppl making those arguments.) I think Norse as a whole has a higher percentage of experts than other civs since theyīre tougher to play, and they have some very effective strats - Thor ragna/titan/fl.w and Loki hersir rush - but that doesnīt mean that the civ as a whole could not use some fine-tuning.. if you want to look at stats, the absence of Odin in higher ratings would prove that.

Once again, I was talking about game stats, not the ESO stats. And I don't really think my conclusions are false when I see ESO stats, if some player is able to use Norse effectively than so can another player, and that was what I really meant to say when I posted those ESO stats.

All players make conclusions, you may feel they are right or wrong, but as a whole most people here are agreeing that ulfs/Norse are not as bad as you are trying to make them out to be. They are not extremely imbalanced or anything either, at this moment AoM:TT is quite well balanced, except maybe some minor tweaks would be good.


Can you do the Double Yoda?
A sexual move, where you do a double backflip, insert your penis into the orifice of choice, and scream, "Afraid are you?"
NIB
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 01:48 PM EDT (US)     43 / 92       

Quote:

First you say that 1v1 tests are useless. Then I do a realistic combo test

Combo test is more useful, but still relative useless.

Quote:

perhaps you have a better way of testing units..?

Well you cant cause of the complexity. IMO overal game statistics as seen in futurehermit's post is the most representative way that i have seen so far to judge how balanced a game is and whether there are any loose screws.

Quote:

As for the stats page, Iīll quote Twain, or whoever it was: "There are 3 kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics"

And? Statistics are always correct. Its the ppl that interpret them that interpret them in a wrong way. Maybe cause they dont know all kinds of statistics or cause they favor specific stats over other statistical data. In any case, read the post and tell me what you think. At least the post sets a universal and logical platform for debating unlike specific civ comparisons.

And as kumar said, this is a game and not real life. Unlike real life a game has a far smaller complexity and unlike life, all in game data can be recorded and used for reference.

Quote:

If all greek units were reduced to 1 dam/second, they would have a nearly 50% winning percentage 5 months from now, if people kept playing them

Yup greeks are op

Quote:

And experts seem to like Norse, but that doesnīt mean that without Thor ragna/fl.weap, theyīre a balanced civ. I play Norse most of the time myself, and I have been very high in ratings - but I donīt play them because I think theyīre the best - I play them cause I think theyīre fun to play. When I couldnīt get higher with Loki in Vanilla at first, I just switched to Poseidon and went up 100 points to 1850, without having much experience with greeks.

Maybe the way that you play makes you a more efficient greek player than an efficient norse player.


ESO name : Relaxing

Eisai ellinas? Tote ela sto www.noobwars.gr.

Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 01:56 PM EDT (US)     44 / 92       
EDIT: this is in response to Kumar, Iīll read NIBīs post now..

Iīm not making ulfs out to be anything. I am only saying that they are not at all as cost effective as the atlantean "ulf" the murmillo. All remarks about how well they can be upgraded, Iīve never disagreed with. I even posted how well they did when FU. I just donīt think that they should be worse from the start simply because they can get a lot of upgrades, as other units (eg hades tox) can too. And I donīt know what stats you meant, my quote was made in response to NIB, who referred to ESO stats. Iīm sorry for any confusion there.

And if you want stats, here they are:

Ulf Murm
80 res 85 res
80 HP 110 HP
4.8 spd 4.5 spd
2 pop 2 pop
HA 30 HA 34
PA 10 PA 10
atk 9 atk 8

I just donīt think that -0.3 spd, -1 atk, +4 HA and +30 HP isnīt worth more than 5 food.

Then we could debate till ragnarok about whether shorter training time, more upgrades, other aspects of the civs etc, etc makes them balanced, but I just donīt think they do.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-19-2004 @ 01:57 PM).]

Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 02:09 PM EDT (US)     45 / 92       
To NIB - I donīt think that the stats you referred to are good for making conclusions at all - thatīs what I meant with the greek being reduced to 1 attack thing (but if you donīt understand what I mean just say so and Iīll explain), and I have another example in the latest TA post in this forum.

And btw, combo tests arenīt useless, they are often exectly what will happen when two ppl clash in-game.

I doubt the way I play makes me a better Greek player than Norse.. I forward build my ass off, and move vills around all the time... and houses costing 50 wood screwed my over quite a few times..

But fact is, greek econ is on a par with norse, much because of the extra starting vill for the greeks, and once you learn to start farming earlier, their econ may be a little slower, but also safer. So when you play Poseidon, you will go classical with roughly the same eco as norse, and then you have cheaper buildings from which to create your hip/tox combo, which will beat every possible army he could throw at you, and just raid him till heīs stripped of gold mines. Sure a Norse could counter this by rushing, FH, or just make a "greek" econ with farms - but ceasefire counters the rush well, and in general you will be stronger.

I may bitch about Norse, but I wouldnīt trade my Loki for Hades if tox got 90% hack armor.

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-19-2004 @ 02:12 PM).]

jazzman_1
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 03:09 PM EDT (US)     46 / 92       
when I watch the ulfs fight, it seems to me that their ROF is a bit quicker than the murms..I could be wrong though.. just something to consider.

Although Odin has the least upgraded versions of ulfs as far as godpaths go, he does have the lone wanderer tech, which brings their speed up considerably.

The thing is, if ulfs were boosted anymore, a fully upgraded version of them risks being too powerful. Personally, I wouldnt mind seeing atl murms going up +5 in gold like they were originally. However, then you have to consider if you should raise the price of the katas as well to compensate for the rise of murm price. It's a tough call.

Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 03:38 PM EDT (US)     47 / 92       
ROF shouldnīt matter.. itīs damage per second.. besides they wave those axes around constantly but enemies hp only go down in increments some time apart, so..

FU ulfs might be too good if boosted, but theyīd still get slaughtered by all antiinf.. They could make berserkergang affect huskarls instead (or maybe increase speed of all units with a small amount, would make sense for the tech), to make up for it.

Zappos
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 04:20 PM EDT (US)     48 / 92       
The problem with shruging off myth techs is that you are ignoring a Norse strength and Atlantean weakness. Norse gets the best Military Myth techs in the game, Atlanteans have the worst.

There are no "uber" Atlantean units. Each Atlantean military unit is lucky to have access to even a single modest myth tech, and they are not organized into convenient paths. No military benefits are provided through major gods, save the Oranos speed boost.

Atlanteans are also a classical powerhouse who's power drops considerably as the game goes on. You can't boil a complex comparison down to Unit A vs Unit B.

In any event, giving TA the same bonus vs Murms that they get against hops would compensate for any weakness, if change is needed.

NIB
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 04:21 PM EDT (US)     49 / 92       

Quote:

this is in response to Kumar, Iīll read NIBīs post now..

Learn to read before you post. If a new post arises while you were answering some other post, then edit your post and write whatever you want to add. No need for double posting.

Quote:

To NIB - I donīt think that the stats you referred to are good for making conclusions at all - thatīs what I meant with the greek being reduced to 1 attack thing (but if you donīt understand what I mean just say so and Iīll explain), and I have another example in the latest TA post in this forum.

Man your ideas about balancing are stupid to say the least. I challenge you to go write on aots your suggestions about tas(with 8dmg+multipliers or 6+greatly increased multipliers) and your greek nerfing(-1dmg on all their units). I really want to see if you can break the flame record that some1 got when he posted about how overpowered greek heroes are.

And its sad coming from some1 with a decent rating on aom tt. I guess monkey sees, monkey does without understand what or why he does it.

Quote:

So when you play Poseidon, you will go classical with roughly the same eco as norse, and then you have cheaper buildings from which to create your hip/tox combo, which will beat every possible army he could throw at you

Massed rcs do the trick pretty easy. I pitty the guy who makes hippikon vs norse. Rcs are faster, tougher and generally better. Only disadvantage they have(and they recently got) is their training time, but even their training time is better than hippikon's training time. And about toxotes, rcs are good enough. Hell on an open field, even ulfsarks beat them.

Quote:

when I watch the ulfs fight, it seems to me that their ROF is a bit quicker than the murms..I could be wrong though.. just something to consider

No cause the dmg stated is dmg per sec not dmg per hit.

Quote:

There are no "uber" Atlantean units

Ehm, fanatics?


ESO name : Relaxing

Eisai ellinas? Tote ela sto www.noobwars.gr.

[This message has been edited by NIB (edited 04-19-2004 @ 04:23 PM).]

Zappos
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 04:31 PM EDT (US)     50 / 92       
Well yes, fanatics are uber. I mean "uber" as far as being suped up beyound it's normal level, ie Zeus uber-hops, Hades tox, Thor uber-ulfs, Odin uber-jarls, ect...

It is worth noting that fanatics have no myth techs(and need none). I was pointing out that this is how Atlanteans seem to operate, very good units, but little can be done to make them better. They also have mostly segregated minor god choices rather than stacking chains. Oceanus has all infantry upgrades, Helios has siege, Theia Calvary, ect. All of this was probably done to make the civ even easier to play for inexperienced players.

Kumar Shah
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 04:48 PM EDT (US)     51 / 92       
I beleive I have argued enough, and don't really care anymore to help you understand the mechanics of game balancing.

Can you do the Double Yoda?
A sexual move, where you do a double backflip, insert your penis into the orifice of choice, and scream, "Afraid are you?"
lessthanjakeman9
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 04:55 PM EDT (US)     52 / 92       
ulfs may be worse cost and pop effectively but they are invaluable realy on since they are made in only 9 secs. This is great for rushing or stopping a rush. So you say in the late game they must suck. Well no. Fully upgraded thor ulfs are one of the best units in the game.
Etendorf
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 05:33 PM EDT (US)     53 / 92       

Quote:

econ:
raise the build time of Attie villes. or lower the cost of Thor and Odin Ox Carts to 25/25 and Loki's to 15/15.

Do NOT raise build time of attie vils. Very very bad. That would be a super nerf, unless it was very very small.

But I like the sound of the second option, I was thinking it myself.. But I would want ES to do full mathmatical and realistic situations and creative bunches of people testing such things. More, though, would be let the Ox cart move faster for all, Just think, how many vill seconds are wasted with a group of vils moving at the speed of an oxcart across the map. Make all oxcarts faster, loki's even faster, but make loki's still the only one that is 25 food 25 wood? I don't know, you could go so many different ways with that idea, and it could have drastic or unique effects which might be nessacary.


Nick: Eten.
Gods: All of them!
Vanilla.
Johnny_Deppig
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 07:20 PM EDT (US)     54 / 92       
Ok, I am now going to sound very pissed and condescending, and that is my intention.

NIB, I donīt know if you donīt speak english past a 3rd grade level or are just plain retarded. I tried double posting to make it easier for you not to jumble all arguments in your head, but it didnīt seem to work.

First: Poseidonīs hippis are better than rc. End of story. Scream all you want, but hipp/tox beats pure rc. It does in the editor, in single player, and in multiplayer. Rcs have somewhat higher hack armor and take less pop, but they will still lose. I know, since I have beaten norse rc spammers like this by the dozen, and I have been beaten when going all rc vs hip/tox.

Second: I never ever said greek should have -1 damage on all their units. I said that if all greek units made 1 damage/second, theyīd still have a roughly 50% winning percent . This is because worthless as theyīd be, theyīd eventually end up playing only each other, and then theyīd get 50% wins. This is why Kronos isnīt as good in the stats as he is in the hands of an expert - A lot of noobs play with him cause they think he looks good on the title screen, and lose, which says nothing about his strenghth.

Third: If thrax made 8 dmg/sec and kept their multipliers, theyīd still cause less damage to infantry than axemen or hypaspists, but theyīd be ranged, making them stronger - they way it was intended to be from the beginning. Youīd still be able to slaughter a rc/ta combo with prodromos and toxotes, but Norse would get a little better in classical. Like I said before (and try to read it this time), Throwing axemen throw AXES. Axes cause more bleeding than arrows - just chop yourself in the leg with one, youīll see what I mean. But they are also heavier. That is why the throwing axeman has shorter range, and that is why he should cause more damage than a tox. Only he doesnīt. If you think that tas being able to build, or thor getting a cheaper armory makes up for that, thatīs your opinion.

Quote:

Monkey sees, monkey does, etc..

Yup, when your arguments run out, you start flaming. I avoid using other ppls strats as much as I can, btw, if youīre actually interested.


Zappo, Norse do have great myth techs (if you go Tyr). And atlanteans have a surprising lack of single-unit upgrade godpaths. But since murms/cheiros are stronger all the way to mythic, and fanatics can take over from there (Norse have enormous trouble beating mass fanatics, since TAs arenīt very good vs them), they donīt really need one. And like I said, When you pump your ulf that badly, you neglect all other units, putting all eggs in one basket - and even FU ulfs canīt beat their hard counters.


And Kumar (if you read this). You havenīt taught me anything about game balancing, because so far you have had nothing to teach. I just started the thread to post how murms are more cost-effective than ulfs, and then youīre surprised that my tests donīt have rcs in them, since rcs are a part of any classical norse army (of course, I wasnīt testing full armies, but..). So I test combos that include rcs, and get the result that the atl. player wins. You decide to take the one of the three tests that was most uncertain, test it twice, and get off results. Didnīt you think there was something odd in your testing when rcs microed on cheiros, and cheiros left alone to rip tas, produced the same results? Test it 10+ times, like I did, then make an argument.

You talk about game balancing like youīre a designer at ES, but then you make really oddball remarks on this forum, like how a unitīs base cost isnīt supposed to reflect its stats and worth.. Just tell me for which unit, in which ES game EVER, this is true.. Yes, a game could be balanced if a player with worse units gets a better eco, for example. But ES havenīt quite used that way of balancing fully yet - only in the sense that all civs get bonuses, some being eco, others mil. And what I am saying, again, is that the Norse eco isnīt better than the Greek, for example, their units arenīt cheaper, but their units fare worse. If experts can get around this by means of using other strats, fine. Boosting the ulf wouldnīt affect the Hersir rush, for one thing, anyway.

And slightly OT, since you and I both suggest fine-tuning the game is possible - what do you want boosted? It couldnīt be the TA!?? Come out of the closet NOW!

[This message has been edited by Johnny_Deppig (edited 04-19-2004 @ 07:20 PM).]

Counter_Master
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 07:45 PM EDT (US)     55 / 92       
Ok, I just did the same test you did when you started this thread. And you know what? 5 murmillo survived. Maybe you ought to do multiple tests next time.

.o.o Counter_Master o.o.
Independent Scenario Designer
Current Project: Alexandria
I don't got time for pain! The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!' --- Terry Tate


Tyr_of_Asgard
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 07:48 PM EDT (US)     56 / 92       
certainly you can and should compare similar functioning units from different civs. this is how we judge thier relitive usefulness.

for instance,

1:Ulfs to Murm to Spear to Hops.

2:TA to Cherios to Axemen to Hyps.

3:RC/Jarls to Contarious to(poor eggy) to Hipp.

etc. etc.

and yes, if you take certain god paths then Ulfs are great counter Calv. but if you do not take these god paths then they are absolute crap. in all reality, if ES is gonna give Ulfs the hit points of a hard counter, then they should be a hard counter.

again i say, the prob with Norse is all RAX units have low HPs. also the Norse don't have any hard counters. unless you count TA. but TA are soft hard counters when compared to other civs counter infantry. that's not to say ES doesn't have to consider all potential upgrade paths too.

Counter_Master
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 07:48 PM EDT (US)     57 / 92       
Oh, and mods, I really think this thread ought to be closed. Now the thing that everyone resorts to in this post (including me) is flaming each other. Can you PLEASE close this worthless thread?

.o.o Counter_Master o.o.
Independent Scenario Designer
Current Project: Alexandria
I don't got time for pain! The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!' --- Terry Tate


Etendorf
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 07:49 PM EDT (US)     58 / 92       
^Your kinda creepy Johnny^

Stop yelling at people. sheesh. This whole argument was kinda fun to read until this point.

If TAs did 8 hack damage, they would simply be uber. In vanilla AOM, they were pretty good, but I don't think they were uber. If you give them .5 hack, "fix" the multiplier versus Murms and fanatics, and the multiplier versus fanatics versus TA, TA would be quite reasonable units. you can't play Norse like any of the other civs, because they are so hugely different at the core. TA do hack, and because of that they can have many more uses than an archer, and if you combine the total of what norse do, such as building buildings and the speed of units, and the large and very noticable major god bonuses that are as unique as there civ, flexible and unique eco with dwarve, oxcarts, and gatherers, and there aggresive form of favor generation, It should equal out.
So I am saying that norse don't need to be so specifically comparable up to the same stats when versus other civs in unit specifics, because they are entirly different in many aspects. The reason TA need a boost like I suggested is because it is all that seems is neccasary to correctly balance Norse versus other civs, as to it helps them counter an overly effective combo that other civs have.


Nick: Eten.
Gods: All of them!
Vanilla.
Sithmaster_821
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 08:20 PM EDT (US)     59 / 92       

Quoted from Johnny_Deppig:

A econ is better than N
A mainline inf is better than N
A GPs are (mostly) better than N
A antiinf is better than N
A cav is better than N
A anticav is better than N
A have archers
A have a unit with bonus vs all (?) N
N donīt have decent ranged siege, and villies get a bonus vs their siege
Aīs heroic siege doesnīt get countered by vills
N have more expensive barracks and docks


Umm....
GP's are better? Like what? Chaos? Traitor? Spider Lair? Atties have far worse GP's, with only the mythic ones being on par with the other civs.
Cav is better? You have got to be kidding me. I'd gladly switch contari with either RC's or jarls.
The Norse may not have decent ranged siege, but atleast they have ranged siege. I'd trade ballistas for fire siphons any day.
Again, I'd gladly trade destroyers for rams
And the barracks don't cost less either:
Longhouse (builds 4 units)-110w
Mil. Barracks (builds one unit in classical, 3 in heroic)-75w 35g
Counter Barracks (builds three units)-100w 25g
Neither do the docks:
Norse Dock-120w
Alt Dock-125w
And the viability of the mainline infantry is debatable.

So, out of your 11 "points", only five were true.

Tyr_of_Asgard
Mortal
posted 19 April 2004 09:50 PM EDT (US)     60 / 92       
Etendorf: if we leave the Atties out i'll agree TA are most of what the Norse need.

but even Attie aside, Norse troops are laking hard counters. i suppose that would be fine if they had good mainline troops. but, minus the fact that RC have to much hack armor, they don't.

massed archers are a problem for Norse. as are big hit point cav(Jarls and the like)for non Bragi Ulfs.

i should state that i always play Thor and always take Bragi so it's not that bad for me. but maybe if i had a hard counter to cav i would consider Skadi.

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

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames