Because there are Civs that will gladly use buildings for heal and have crapy monks, like Celts for example. So now yoi will have distinction between them
2x faster healing you already have in game, its Byzantines Team Bonus. And its free, starting in Castle Age. Are Byz monks OP even in large numbers? No. Its because Monks dont have a lot HP and dont have armor, so they go down rather easily. Only concern will be Aztec Monks, but then Aztec can simply dont have this Tech (As well as Bohemians and Saracens)
Lets be honest, Saracen UT is stronger than this.
Okay, then why would you like to move the Herb Medicine to Universities?
The Infirmary, or Hospital if named by me, could just the next in the Herb Medicine line.
I think some effects are acceptable in a team game, but not necessarily in a 1v1 game.
When it becomes a common technology on the tech tree, it means that Byzantines wonāt the only ones able to enjoy it in 1v1.
Okay, +100% may be welcome. Change the Byzantines team bonus into another effect.
I think it could still be given to the Saracens as long as it would not affect the healing aura.
Btw, I still want to say that the healing aura should also be given to the Monasteries for Saracens. The name of the UT is refering to a type of medical institutions.
For example, which civs? You donāt seem to be going to make Arbalesters with this effect have better stats than the current fully upgraded ones, so I guess the civs accessing it must be ones that donāt have fully upgradeds. So why would those civs, who most likely donāt use archers, need this effect?
Iād still like that faster archers are a feature as a civ bonus or a UT for a potential new archer civ.
Fair enough. Me too! I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Just a couple of comments:
This is interesting and makes a lot of sense from a game design perspective, but does also make some bonus and upgrade descriptions misleading.
Iām not really sure what youāre asking here. Upgrades cost resources and time, so they should always provide some kind of value in exchange for that. If you have an upgrade that improves one feature of the unit, but makes another feature worse, it can be difficult to assess that value.
Comparing DPS isnāt perfect, but it seemed to me to be the best approach in this context. When trying to assess the impact of one upgrade, itās important to keep all other upgrades the same. This follows a general principle in science: if you want to understand the effect of changing one variable, you should change only that variable and no others.
I did also use the Crossbowman with only Thumb Ring as a standard for comparison. The calculation shows that the Arbalester upgrade with -18% rate of fire can still bring more DPS to it. I think this comparison is also in line with the principle you mentioned.
Then I found if the reduction in the base rate of fire of Arbalester is adjusted down by 14.75% or below, the Arbalester upgrade would never reduce the archerās DPS in any comparison. I think I should better change to set it to about 10%.
I think such kind of description makes sense. For example, the Thumb Ring is described as giving archers +18% rate of fire, and Windlass would be described as giving Arbalesters +10% rate of fire. Since it is still possible that only one of them woulld be researched, they must be described as effects on the original value, to tell the player that they are respectively 1* (1 + 0.18) and 1 * (1 + 0.1). Unless we could make the descriptions changed as other technologies are researched, they inevitably look like 1 * 1.18 * 1.1 but are actually just 1 * (1 + 0.18 + 1.1).