I speak for myself: I don’t
I simply am waiting to see WE f**k whatever decision they make in the future, even if it involves AOE3, because I know they will.
1 Like
The current sentiment here be like:
“Hey but at least the monarchy has a special spot for us particularly and and will treat us better than others”
——someone, Paris, 1789
3 Likes
That kinda supports my point that people are jumping to conclusions based on incomplete data while claiming they know the future.
2 Likes
1vs1
Team
I’m surprised how many people play Loki. It’s really a mystery to me, but we do have a meta. Meta = archers.
Here are my stats since I started playing Hades. Keep in mind that it’s the same player.
Your gameplay of saying iddle till late game works better for hades than loki, if you played aggresive you would do better with loki. At least talking from the games we played.
Which we can again in case you wanna see.
Ummm… no. 
I play more aggressively as Hades than as Loki. Because I have archers. If I’m up against Norse, I know it’s an autowin. If the enemy is walled up with towers, I wait for Petrobolos and go on the attack. As Loki, I can’t go on the attack because I don’t have archers. My only chance as Loki is to kill the enemy before the heroic age, otherwise it’s better to surrender right away.
Just for example, I am the most aggressive player around.
A picture of the military value curve would work better for seeing how aggresive you are playing. Since its shows time.
This Just shows at the end of the game how you did.
1 Like
I don’t understand what you want to see here. This graph doesn’t show that pink carried the game solo, unlike these statistics.
I dont care about that i wanted to see your aggresive play, which is not aggresive at all, no decent military production until way longer.
Wouldnt really call it you playing “aggresive”
The post game statistics only shows you how it ended. You dont see how it went thought the game.
Whose is aggressive in your opinion?
In this game? None. Less than 20 units past the 10 minute Mark. All of you took a slower boomier approach, which isnt wrong in any sense btw, simply not aggresive.
Your first decent sized army is at the 20 min Mark, you are way past mythic at that point in most games.
I personally think OP statement is overly dramatic. Devs are doing frequent balance patches, listening to feedback and tweaking stuff to the best of their abilities to have a healthy meta. Remember that building buffs, although controversial, were requested by quite a few people, especially casuals.
Game is far from becoming garbage IMHO. I am enjoying every minute of AoM:R (playing all civs).
3 Likes
Who asked to nerf the TC to a non-working state? (it can’t kill a catascopus for 30 seconds) Who asked to weaken defensive buildings, who asked for an unnecessary upgrade of castles in the mythical age, who asked for a price increase for upgrading towers, who asked for free towers to be removed from Egypt, who asked for increased damage to archers, who asked for an extra building to be added to Norse, who asked for a hirdman, because of which no one will ever build berserkers again. Each of their additions is done at random. They don’t understand what they are doing at all. People who have played the game for at least 100 hours are starting to think that they would have done a better job with this task.
And yes, I think that if they bring the game to the same system that AoE 3 had, then this game will be as popular as AoE 3.
Totally agree with this point. People do indeed think they can do a better job than the devs.
3 Likes
If you want to talk like that, let’s talk. Only a mentally retarded degenerate wouldn’t understand that the berserker will become useless when they add a spearman. You have to be exactly the same degenerate not to understand that giving archers 25% damage for free is a stupid idea, because it breaks the entire economy. I can continue this list forever.
If you want to talk like that, let’s not.
3 Likes
Arcus has gone from base 6 pierce per second to 5 per second (with a 6.25 against infantry). Toxotes from 6.5 to 5.4545 (6.8182 against infantry).
The heavy and champion upgrades give 15% additive damage total more, +75% total instead of +60% if you count Armory upgrades. Effective 9.375% (1.75/1.60) increase with the upgrades.
This in no way adds up to the +25% you keep claim they get. Please quit state falsehoods like that.
Pretty much every unit has gotten lower base damage but higher (or any) multipliers. Most anti-Archer units have gotten higher pierce armour. This is likely due to higher army sizes in lategame and to make Scouting/Techswitching more rewarding.
Berserks still have a separate role over Hirdman, just like the Murmillo to the Katapeltes:
-Frontline to your Ranged trooos if opponent mainly goes Infantry.
-Higher base damage, thus more effective verseus Buildings, Archers AND Infantry.
-Somtimes different God-Specific techs (Like Call of Valhalla for tanking and favour gain)
They can also have overlapping tech (like basic infantry upgrades, Dwarven Breastplate) so you can build BOTH for your armies:
-Seperate them for their specific usage in fight.
-Increase production of one over the other as reaction to your opponents comp.
Specific to Norse:
-Adjust to your own economy. Excess food? more Berserks. Float gold? More Hirdmen.
-Hirdmen have some more range over Berserks naturally putting them slightly behind your Berserks, mitigating their higher vulnerability to Archers and Buildings compared to the possibly more durable Berserks.
There is plenty of tools available that you just continiously refuse to use judging by your comments. Don’t call every interaction stupid when you’re the one who don’t want to engage with the mechanics.
4 Likes