There is nothing inappropriate about claiming that you have lied. You have, and I have noted it above multiple times.
By definition the continued attacks on a fundamental pillar of AoE is wanting to demolish the AoE legacy. But, you will just keep playing semantics and pretend that words mean nothing, while hiding behind your shield of being a moderator.
Like I said in my past comments. If you do not understand a discussion, do not participate. What I think you have done which is especially bad is that you seem to be purposefully poisoning the well of discussion by misinterpreting the argument and pretending that it is what is being discussed.
I hope you realize you are getting close to what is considered moderator abuse. You do not get to deform discussions by pretending that wrongdoings took place.
1 Like
Look if I have abused my power that I have not deleted any of your comments to the reports that have come to me and on top of that you attack me again saying that I use semantics and hide in my moderator shield.
Have you said in various threads that siege should have a diverse purpose and also be more effective against buildings?
Have you said in a thread that the defensive structures must be stronger than they are at the moment?
It is one thing for you to tell me “You are wrong and you did not interpret my words correctly, I meant XYZ” and another is the ways of answering that you have had, not only ensuring that I am lying, but that I manipulate or misrepresent in a malicious way, shielding myself as a moderator. It is embarrassing and it would be good for you to reflect.
1 Like
If you have any more issues with me, I suggest you send messages rather than continue here.
While you have not deleted anything, you keep attempting to moderate my expressions with each reply. The issue is that, I have not done anything wrong and I am correct in saying that you have lied, which you have. It is not an attack to call you out on it, and pretending that it is so you can justify force is also wrong.
You finally acknowledge that I am stating you misrepresent arguments, yet you do not refute it. An example of what I have said in the past; players who want changes to Siege are not requesting Siege to return to how it was, despite how many times you bring it up as a counter point to the entire debate.
No one is asking for a Springald or broken Siege meta. Yet you seem to keep claiming that this is what people want. This is gaslighting, and so is you trying to pretend that you haven’t been doing this.
1 Like
I don’t have any personal problem with you nor have I acknowledged anything, I just gave you an example of a more respectful message that you could have sent.
You have not answered the 2 questions either, since if they are affirmative, it would lead to a meta siege war, although you did not intend for that to occur.
I have nothing more to say, if you have a problem with me, you can PM me.
The thing with this assumption is that, you must be skewing the numbers really badly for this to be the outcome. Siege should be the natural solution to defenses and buildings, and infantry, cavalry should not stand a chance and at most be a desperate attempt at trying to deal damage. While I do want both defenses and siege to be stronger, I will be more specific below;
I don’t want walls or landmarks to be stronger. In fact I think Keeps and “Landmark Keeps” should be entirely different types of buildings. A keep is inherently limited because “Landmark Keeps” are just vastly stronger. So I would make them have different set of stats and functions, like the White Tower (and Landmarks like it) doing far less damage to compensate for its absurd healthpool. I would want regular Keeps to be stronger, as well as Outposts. I would also decouple Emplacements, so that only Outposts have them. The reasoning is that the Cannon emplacement makes Keeps really strong, and it means a Keep cannot by itself be very good without it. But, you cannot nerf the Emplacement too much as Outposts are entirely dependent on it. So I would just remove Emplacements from Keeps alltogether.
This would allow you to balance them individually rather than having dependant balance on each other.
Here is a little image of a massive fundamental problem of the game. Keeps are linked to Landmarks and both Outposts and Keeps share Emplacements. By buffing or nerfing Keeps, the change more massively impacts Landmark Keeps. If people hate Landmark Keeps, nerfing them ends up massively hurting Keeps. Nerfing Emplacements because of Keeps massively hurts Outposts. It is a mess that just needs not be. These are effectively impossible to properly balance and they prevent these structures from shining on their own.
And as for Siege, I do not want every Siege unit to necessarily be better or have varied functions. However, to deal with stronger buildings, you’d need Siege that is less of a hassle to use. Bombards, Trebuchets and Cannon should be more of a threat to Keeps and Outposts than they currently are. They should also be faster moving, to allow the transition from production building to the actual battle to be more manageable. Springalds on the other hand suck as an anti-siege unit only, and I would rather see them as an AoE2 Scorpion instead. Culverins and Ribauldequins could have a more meaningful role in actual combat; maybe Culverins do longrange splash and Ribauldequins move and shoot quicker (rather than having a delay before shooting). It really sucks that the Ribauldequin exists but is completely unusable, it kind of fills a short-range role of the Scorpion in AoE2 which is a fan favourite unit.
Lastly, a relevant point to this entire discussion is resources. It is too easy to accumulate resources and to snowball with millions of Siege units, like what happened during the Springald meta. This could be fixed with increasing the cost of Siege in addition to generally reduce income in the game, as it is entirely out of control right now. Alternatively you could increase the required pop space per Siege unit.
2 Likes
I agree, once Springald were like Scorpion, but then they nerf, and now they are useless if used for runs. other than the current ones.
In my opinion it is sad to see how spending so much on siege engines is useless if not mastered, in my opinion they do not report the cost they are worth, There should be a balance, for example the trebuchets strong and useful from a distance but easy to destroy, and the weaker cannons of the trebuchets, but to be held in front to make a push, Ram, weak against cavalry but not against infantry etc, things of this kind, with more sense, do not reduce all siege engines equal
3 Likes
