ESOCommunity

chronique wrote:1) Why do you want increase the cost of mam when hackapel win in head to head with the current value of both unit lol.
I dont want to increase che cost of mams at the moment. I'm just saying 5 mams card for 1k gold was too much, or in other words 400g for a mameluke is not enough. But instead of increasing the cost of a mameluke (and by doing that the cost of the 5mams card), we decided to keep it at 1k gold and reduce the number of mams by one, which is basically the same but it doesn't create another exception in the cost of mercenary cards.
2) AR is not really considered better than hussard, sioux have just so many upg, this two unit are almost never compared. Cosaque is better because they cost 1 pop, 2 pop cosaque is not realy scary. Meteor hammer is absolutly not like uhlan, they dont need to be tanky because of their range attack, but increasing their tankyness is still worth (that's why Double-Faced Armor is a pretty good card). MH is too specific to be a part of this kind of discussion (like i said range unit need dps, MH have range so i can be agree with that).
"not considered" is not something I care too much. I know the game well enough to know that AR are slightly better than huss. Of course ups, WC speed boost, firepit and the 25% elite upgrade, etc. make it more blatantly obvious.
Cossacks are just better in every single regard except for drop off which they suffer more. I'd say 80% of the reason it's the extra ranged resistance but the rest is pretty much because they have more attack than HP which makes them better. Of course 1 pop is an incredible bonus for lategame.
3) skirm cav is not common and skirm goon > skirm cav most of the time. Try skirm cuir, skirm lancer or skirm hussard vs skirm goon (idk, maybe the meta have shifted a lot the last couple of hours but in dutch mirror i don't see a lot of skirm hussar compo), the exception is maybe ww because ww are much ez to snipe (but regardless, i am quite sure we see more skirm/ww than skirm/pure uhlan). Also, most player don't micro their cav individualy because its garbage to use your apm for that , its better to split fire your ranged unit, and microing a pack of cav
skirm cav is indeed common at least among very good players. FP+kanya is just better than FP+MR for example, but you need to be on top of your stuff all the time which most players can't do. Skirm/huss is also better than skirm/ruyters. Just huss are kinda mediocre cav at least until cav combat and ruyters are just so easily spammable. Also Dutch are late to move out of base for resources so skirm/ruyters perform better in comparison. Back in FP era skirm+cuir was the best way to use french in fortress (just watch h2o games) as long as you are in control of the game. Skirm goons is just the generic counterpart for when you don't know where you stand in the game.
And no, I'm not talking of microing every single cav unit, I'm talking about microing groups of cav to have the perfect surround. So far I can't remember a single player that does that properly. Maybe Kaiserklein does but I'm not even sure. GL splitting your ranged unit fire better than the attack move except for the obvious situations.
4) mame are op because they are tanky, 40% rr is a part of that but i dont care, my point is, cav need to be tanky more than dealing dps (with a lot of rr or a lot of hp, idc). That's why we send cav hp and not cav attack most of the time.
mams are OP for 90% becuause of the 40% rr which is also the reason why jaegers are so good. You could have a 600hp mams with the cost adjusted accordingly and the unit would still be problematic because of the rr%. In fact China cav after the armor card has the same exact problem.
We send cav HP because there are usually multiple marginal reasons for it. First of all HP is more valuable on most cav units as most of them have higher HP than atk (huss, lancers, cuirs). For Germans it's because HP give 2 ulhans. Also with cav attakc they just overkill more. For Sioux is close but having extra HP on the WC is marginally better than like 1 more base attack. Also attack can be boosted by the firepit anyway. And so on.

chronique wrote:Lol, i don't understand why i argue with you when your argue conclude than hp (or tanky factor, like rr) is more important 95% of the time, exactly what i am saying ^^.

chronique wrote:Lol, i don't understand why i argue with you when your argue conclude than hp (or tanky factor, like rr) is more important 95% of the time, exactly what i am saying ^^.

Garja wrote:

chronique wrote:Lol, i don't understand why i argue with you when your argue conclude than hp (or tanky factor, like rr) is more important 95% of the time, exactly what i am saying ^^.

It's not more important, I don't know where you see me concluding that. I mean either you struggle with English or you struggle to grasp the nuances of an argument regardless of the language. Maybe both.

007Salt wrote:

chronique wrote:Lol, i don't understand why i argue with you when your argue conclude than hp (or tanky factor, like rr) is more important 95% of the time, exactly what i am saying ^^.

If you make dragoons then you can win vs the lancers.... it'll make Caballeros look like nothing so it'ls perfectly balanced

Garja wrote:

chronique wrote:Lol, i don't understand why i argue with you when your argue conclude than hp (or tanky factor, like rr) is more important 95% of the time, exactly what i am saying ^^.

It's not more important, I don't know where you see me concluding that. I mean either you struggle with English or you struggle to grasp the nuances of an argument regardless of the language. Maybe both.

chronique wrote:

007Salt wrote:

chronique wrote:Lol, i don't understand why i argue with you when your argue conclude than hp (or tanky factor, like rr) is more important 95% of the time, exactly what i am saying ^^.

If you make dragoons then you can win vs the lancers.... it'll make Caballeros look like nothing so it'ls perfectly balanced

Why you quoting me ^^

chronique wrote:

Garja wrote:

chronique wrote:Lol, i don't understand why i argue with you when your argue conclude than hp (or tanky factor, like rr) is more important 95% of the time, exactly what i am saying ^^.

It's not more important, I don't know where you see me concluding that. I mean either you struggle with English or you struggle to grasp the nuances of an argument regardless of the language. Maybe both.

I don't see you conclude that, i conclude that after reading your argues ^^. You use some semantic stuff (like "peaple send cav hp because there are not enough good player too understand how cav atta is better") but at the end you said that most of the time, we (not you, but all others) prefere cav for tanky more than for dps.

007Salt wrote:

chronique wrote:

Show hidden quotes

007Salt wrote:

chronique wrote:Lol, i don't understand why i argue with you when your argue conclude than hp (or tanky factor, like rr) is more important 95% of the time, exactly what i am saying ^^.

If you make dragoons then you can win vs the lancers.... it'll make Caballeros look like nothing so it'ls perfectly balanced

Why you quoting me ^^

Make dragoons bro

chronique wrote:

007Salt wrote:

Show hidden quotes

chronique wrote:

007Salt wrote:

chronique wrote:Lol, i don't understand why i argue with you when your argue conclude than hp (or tanky factor, like rr) is more important 95% of the time, exactly what i am saying ^^.

If you make dragoons then you can win vs the lancers.... it'll make Caballeros look like nothing so it'ls perfectly balanced

Why you quoting me ^^

Make dragoons bro

Wtf are you talking about lol, you quote the wrong person i guess