ESOCommunity

Abus are very good in age 3 with the 20 range, but it's nearly impossible to make enought of them because it takes forever, as a result we litterally never see people going late age 3 as otto. As a result this is a big non sens to nerf it. You told yourself that you won games only in age 2 with abus. @Kaiserklein @Diarouga
I am waiting for all this game where people won thanks to 20 range abus. I haven't seen any in tourney for my part.

Because people didn't pick the bad MUs.
Anyway, you won as otto vs me playing France in tourney thanks to 20 range abus. Also Port can't counter that, which is why people don't play that MU as Port.

@bwinner I never said "only" lol. I've won plenty of games with fortress abus jan.
I've lost otto mirror to tabben in nwc because i went falcs and he went abus. And I won otto mirror vs raphael in showmatch because I had vet abus. I've won vs erik in some tourney on high plains with vet abus jan, actually almost lost because I went jan huss instead of jan abus to begin with. There's probably more examples.

Is there any other high level player that disagrees with nerfing abus range, or is it just bwinner?

I updated my long post on japan - 115 wood shrines are imo what should be done with japan, if anything.

@[Armag] diarouga 20 range on abus is strong yes, but i think nerfing their damage by 20% will already be a big deal. The unit is expensive and costs 2 pop, and on top of that the 2 range only comes after the veteran upgrade. Colonial abus are still at a range disadvantage compared to fortress skirms, it's a buff that really only shows when otto is age 3 and has teched his units.

About xbows, yes, they are usable, but for the cost you pay you're only getting 4 more range than a normal musk out of it. The rest is simply worse in every aspect. The cost effectiveness of the unit is quite bad imo, xbows become useless really soon in colonial and in fact all the civs that have xbows kinda suck in prolonged colonial wars. 17-18 attack would also be reasonable.

princeofcarthage wrote:There is no logic in claiming ceasefire should be only used defensively and not aggressively.

Cease Fire is poor game design. Mele units pay a price - they excel when in mele combat but must take all the ranged damage until they get there. This 'ability' circumvents an integral component of the game's counter system balance. It's inconsistent with design intent.

I think an appropriate Japan change would be to increase the amount of export the Toshugu grants. This was nerfed in an official patch long ago, but it would help Japan defensively and not scale too hard into the long game.

i greatly disagree with nerfing abus unless it’s a part of a measured unit design change

Cometk wrote:i greatly disagree with nerfing abus unless it’s a part of a measured unit design change

CombotK

@aztecs

Colonial politician:
1 War Hut Travois + 1 Warrior Priest

Please Buff botto.

n0el wrote:I think an appropriate Japan change would be to increase the amount of export the Toshugu grants. This was nerfed in an official patch long ago, but it would help Japan defensively and not scale too hard into the long game.

you mean 300 instead of 200?

I suggested that already in past. The objections was that toshogu is already the most viable wonder.
300 is a lot anyway, 250 seems more appropriate. It just speeds up key consulate techs by a little.

n0el wrote:I think an appropriate Japan change would be to increase the amount of export the Toshugu grants. This was nerfed in an official patch long ago, but it would help Japan defensively and not scale too hard into the long game.

Erf, 7bows at 6min sounds op tbh I wouldn't do that.

Cometk wrote:i greatly disagree with nerfing abus unless it’s a part of a measured unit design change

Is there any other unit that has 32 or more base bombard attack for the cost of 150 resources? No, the unit would still most definitely be characterized by a high attack. There is nothing wrong with nerfing abus damage if it was too high to begin with (and it was). There is something wrong instead with giving it 3.5 firing rate, because it screws with basically everything else in the game. Probably it was done to make the age2 abus jan composition harder to micro, but it seems like the change wasn't very effective because people are still complaining about it.

I would revert the ROF nerf and nerf their HP/attack instead. Nerfing ROF was very awkward.
Anyway, 20 range is just dumb.

gamevideo113 wrote:

Cometk wrote:i greatly disagree with nerfing abus unless it’s a part of a measured unit design change

Is there any other unit that has 32 or more base bombard attack for the cost of 150 resources? No, the unit would still most definitely be characterized by a high attack. There is nothing wrong with nerfing abus damage if it was too high to begin with (and it was). There is something wrong instead with giving it 3.5 firing rate, because it screws with basically everything else in the game. Probably it was done to make the age2 abus jan composition harder to micro, but it seems like the change wasn't very effective because people are still complaining about it.

Abus damage isn't the problem, it's that it's siege damage, if it was ranged damage it'd be fine.

Maybe replace cease fire by +1 speed during 15 sec? That way, the cease fire non sense is removed, but you can still get away with a musk/huss composition.

This sounds fun

Hazza54321 wrote:

n0el wrote:I think an appropriate Japan change would be to increase the amount of export the Toshugu grants. This was nerfed in an official patch long ago, but it would help Japan defensively and not scale too hard into the long game.

you mean 300 instead of 200?

You’d have to test the number, whether it’s 250 or what. It just increases their flexibility early. You can use it economically or for aggression or defense. Do this and revert the shrine change which is just weird.

[Armag] diarouga wrote:Because people didn't pick the bad MUs.
Anyway, you won as otto vs me playing France in tourney thanks to 20 range abus. Also Port can't counter that, which is why people don't play that MU as Port.

Eh I'm not sure Ports lose to otto. Huss semi into skirm+huss+shipments used to be pretty neat counter in FP 1.2. Now jan abus are nerfed and prot vills are a buffed so it should be even easier.

Riotcoke wrote:Is there any other high level player that disagrees with nerfing abus range, or is it just bwinner?

To be fair I don't even mind the design idea behind the extra range. +2 each age sounds cool and coherent with the unit being premium. The point is that the unit needs solid counter nerfs for that.

I agree with Garja on this, the issue is that you can't really counter 20 range abus. With a *5 multiplier for culvs abus it would be fine, but huss can't really counter them right now.

[Armag] diarouga wrote:I would revert the ROF nerf and nerf their HP/attack instead. Nerfing ROF was very awkward.
Anyway, 20 range is just dumb.

Awkward because now the unit actually feels different from other units?
Yeah god forbid we have unique units

Goodspeed wrote:

[Armag] diarouga wrote:I would revert the ROF nerf and nerf their HP/attack instead. Nerfing ROF was very awkward.
Anyway, 20 range is just dumb.

Awkward because now the unit actually feels different from other units?
Yeah god forbid we have unique units

Awkard because we're used to hit and running with 3 ROF abus guns.

The main problem I have with nerfing age 3 abus is that Otto are already not strong in middle/late age 3, so nerfing this aspect is just going back to re broken Otto that just rely on all in timmings.

What do people think of the game Mitoe french fi'd against urumi? Was it winnable for french? I feel like french coul've won pretty easily.