Apart from new atzec unit and the xp changes to Ger and Inda theres nothing interesting. Inca and Sweden need some more tweaking. Japan and India still very strong imo.
You can invite clan mates to your game. But not other mates from friendlist?
One interesting thing is that it seems like they are using the civ winrates across both casual and ranked games as a measure of civ strength, in order to determine who to nerf. This might be controversial since I think civs play quite different at the competitive level compared to how the average player plays them. Balancing around the general winrate might produce some pretty unbalanced matchups at the highest competitive levels.
Personal highlights:
- I think the 1% XP curve nerf to India is a bit unwarranted, but then again the map pool does provide herdables more often than RE;
- 100 XP per TC is a very interesting ports buff;
- moving native embassies from vils to heroes seems like a workaround instead of a fix;
- ger at 110% XP curve;
- many inca changes (nerfs and buffs);
- lakota 10 second slower messanger ageup;
- fixed ladder;
- less units getting stuck
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
badger_prince wrote:Sadly the new aztec unit doesn't scale with aging up, unlike other explorer "pets".
Or am I mistaken and there is precedence?
Still happy about the change.
I mean having the ability to pull trick and also have 18 atk vs treasure guardian with a rate of fire of 1.5 is just quite ridiculous... They gone from the worst to the best in age 1 haha.
badger_prince wrote:Sadly the new aztec unit doesn't scale with aging up, unlike other explorer "pets".
Or am I mistaken and there is precedence?
Still happy about the change.
I mean having the ability to pull trick and also have 18 atk vs treasure guardian with a rate of fire of 1.5 is just quite ridiculous... They gone from the worst to the best in age 1 haha.
Yeah, sure.
I still think it's an inconsistency. This is not me complaining about them being not powerful enough because they don't scale - it just feels very stop-gappy.
Patch notes seem great has always, definetely good news :) Let's hope for no new bugs and let's hope they fixed the dragbox lag thing.
Balance changes are interesting, not necessarily good but I already note down stuff to test.
badger_prince wrote:Sadly the new aztec unit doesn't scale with aging up, unlike other explorer "pets".
Or am I mistaken and there is precedence?
Still happy about the change.
I mean having the ability to pull trick and also have 18 atk vs treasure guardian with a rate of fire of 1.5 is just quite ridiculous... They gone from the worst to the best in age 1 haha.
Yeah, sure.
I still think it's an inconsistency. This is not me complaining about them being not powerful enough because they don't scale - it just feels very stop-gappy.
Also ranged attack for some euro creeping technique maybe?
I mean they are better scout than french scout too and still have invisibility for spying and might be buffed by the card advanced scout. We need some test after all!
the 100xp for port its definetely a bad change, 200xp for a ff nice idea, and now the ports are playable on all maps, which should not be the case for a civ
kevinitalien wrote: the ports are playable on all maps, which should not be the case for a civ
That should definitely be the case. Ideally civ should be fine on every maps.
I mean, Brits or Japan or France are strong on every map where Port are strong too.
Lol at Lakota having the best win% in all of ranked and casual supremacy. Ngl it is pretty annoying to get 4 axe'd.
However I'm concerned that this is a sign that Bill has a personal vendetta against fitzbro. When fitzbro made only tashunkes, Bill nerfed them and he was devestated. And now that fitzbro only fast ages, Bill has nerfed this too.
kevinitalien wrote: the ports are playable on all maps, which should not be the case for a civ
That should definitely be the case. Ideally civ should be fine on every maps.
I mean, Brits or Japan or France are strong on every map where Port are strong too.
it's nonsense, say its for the otto, the ger, the dutch, the lakota etc etc, a civ should not be strong on all the maps, its makes no sense, THE DESIGN OF THE CIV DOES NOT MUST NOT BE GOOD FOR ALL MAPS