Beta Japanese Discussion

User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Beta Japanese Discussion

Post by Garja »

I wouldn't even change the base damage. But I guess if you want to buff that then normalize the multiplier to have it the same as now.
Image Image Image
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: Beta Japanese Discussion

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Garja wrote:I wouldn't even change the base damage. But I guess if you want to buff that then normalize the multiplier to have it the same as now.

+1
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Beta Japanese Discussion

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:
zoom wrote:
Show hidden quotes

I'd be happy to revert these viability buffs when players find they were already somewhat viable units.

1. I don't have an opinion on whether it's a bug. I simply trust Eaglemut's insistence. 2. Besides for technical reasons, I don't give half of a flying fuck whether it's a bug; I'm only interested in whether the change is desirable.

Like caracole for the Cavalry Archer, you mean? Now you're just being Garja! Also, the unit in question is, at best, barely viable, and has poor statistics, for its cost. Helping it scale into the late-game seems only to be a good thing, to me.

Best Colonial Japanese unit shipment – absolutely. Best Colonial unit shipment – now you're just being Garja, again!

I already found them more than a somewhat viable unit, or I wouldn't tell you the buff is random and the unit is ok.
Bug what? 2x or what? If it's not a buf it is not desireable to remove it, it should be that simple.
I mean they dont have pistol hence the tech is dumb. What is even more dumb is that you're treating yabusame as goons as if they were supposed to be equally good vs cav, equally viable, equally period. It's a different unit. I could make an argument for standardization but it's not even just that. It is simply that the unit is fine as it is. It counters artillery and it helps vs cav. And it has already 2 cards for more attack in case you want to use it purely like goons (which is against the design of the civ since you have like 3 other anticav units).
Idk what you base your statements of "barely viable and bs". As if 10 nubs voicing for nonsense buffs make any sense. Or do you base it on your own experience of non playing player?!
Ye as if double 6 yumi shipment isn't straight up better than, for comparison, 6 lbows, both res and power wise.

Honestly when you fuck up with these things you just shows that you have no clue.
Right. Unfortunately, I'm yet to see any other player share your opinion, on that.

Whether it's a bug or not (which I've yet to be convinced of, by anyone but Eaglemut), it is considered desirable for its balance implications. I wonder whether you agree with that.

Again: Does the Cavalry Archer have a firearm? On top of which, the change hasn't even been made.

The notion that I'm treating the Yabusame as a Dragoon is nonsense; I have absolutely no intention of making it anywhere near as viable as a Dragoon, against heavy cavalry. Based on feedback and observations, I want it, and the Japanese civilization, to be a little stronger, overall, and in particular, I want shipping and training the unit to be more viable, and happen less infrequently. This change is a general buff to the unit; not at all targeted towards its anti-cavalry capacity. There is no standardization. It's great that the unit has two upgrade shipments. It's only a pity that no one ever sends them. I wonder what the reason for that might be!

The basis for my statements is over a decade's worth of observing and playing the game, as well as talking to players. I appreciate you disagreeing, but you should accept when yours is the dissenting opinion, rather than the consensus.

The "6 Yumi Archers" shipment – which I've already stated, in this very thread, is not being considered anymore – would have been marginally better than the 6 Longbowmen shipment, which is a below average one (discounting lower-tier shipments such as 6 Rodeleros).

Honestly, when your arguments are this poor, you just fail to convince anyone. Please be more reasonable!
:flowers:
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Beta Japanese Discussion

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:
zoom wrote:
Hazza54321 wrote:5 yumi to 6 is unnecessary
Everything is. If you mean undesirable (for whatever reason), it's arguable. Especially with 3 Samurai being buffed, I might agree.

Some changes are indeed necessary. The fact that you fail to aknowledge the difference between necessary and arbitrary is the cause of all problems.
Totally!
:santa:
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Beta Japanese Discussion

Post by zoom »

Garja wrote:I wouldn't even change the base damage. But I guess if you want to buff that then normalize the multiplier to have it the same as now.
I'd rather not standardize the unit, unless there are no other options.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Beta Japanese Discussion

Post by zoom »

Kynesie wrote:Golden pavilion icon can be used as a shortcut to select the wonder ( like tp icon or shrine icon).
About samurai ( and halbs) , i think it s better to try a good buff first : if you don t buff these units enough resulting in that they are not use more, and as they will already be buffed, it will be very hard to argue for a new buff later. On the contrary, if you overbuff an unit, you can be sure it will be nerf at the next ep iteration, which seems better to get the right balance.

[Armag] diarouga wrote:people don't make artillery against Japan (because you need to make falcs AND culvs against Japan which is quite slow).

I don t agree with this specific point, i feel people does it and it s overall often a good choice.
Thank you for pointing that out!
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Beta Japanese Discussion

Post by Garja »

zoom wrote:
Garja wrote:I wouldn't even change the base damage. But I guess if you want to buff that then normalize the multiplier to have it the same as now.
I'd rather not standardize the unit, unless there are no other options.

So you mean that you're not gonna touch the unit? Cause increasing the attack is standardizing the unit.

Given you posts it's clear we are simply not on the same page.
"Based on feedback..." ye of people who have little clue.
Anyway I'm just going to let you do your stuff. I'll just take the benefits of having stronger Japan.
Image Image Image
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7257
Joined: Feb 15, 2015
Location: California

Re: Beta Japanese Discussion

Post by Cometk »

No it’s not?
Image
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Beta Japanese Discussion

Post by Garja »

Cometk wrote:No it’s not?

It is because the main consequence will be performing better vs cavalry. They already destroy artillery so an attack increase barely matter in that sense.
Image Image Image
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: Beta Japanese Discussion

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Making artillery against jap won't be an option anymore tbh.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV