Jump to content


Tier Gap, how Wargaming destroyed this game, other issues


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

Xarthare #1 Posted 26 December 2017 - 10:24 PM

    Centurion

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 382
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014
Well i am without words to express how disappointed i am with the state of the game.

I remember when i used to play this during the steam era, when the game was interesting, rewarded ppl with skill, tactics. Nowadays, well, i've become used to Wargaming policy of keep the money flowing ....

What i dislike about the game, apart from the everything that they have changed from the steam version:

a) if you have a high tier unit you will win the engagement, this just rewards players who grind the game till they reach tier 10, doesn't matter if the player is good or not, it just matters the time you have "invested" in the game, as a loyal player (i now understand why Copper Pride used to rage a lot....)

b) premium units: i understand games need money to survive, but the way this is done is just silly. I've already mentioned this during the alpha version a few months back, but since wargaming only address whatever they feel should be addressed, oh well, we will continue with the pay 2 win and the players who refuse to buy horrible units.

c) Units missing from the steam version. Well at this point i expect to see horse archers as a premium unit, it is beyond me why Triari, which used to be a tier 4 roman unit is now a premium and a tier 7. apart from horse archers the roman and greek rooster has suffered some changes, i don't agree, but oh well...i will live with it.

d) This one isn interestinf . For some reason you can't kill the units that the enemy player can't control. When i try to click on them so i finish whatever is left to get a few extra points it just doesn't allow it. I don't remember seeing this in the patch notes, if i'm the one who missed it well my bad and i apologize, if it was a ninja nerf/fix, thank you....

e) I love this one. there is good and bad friendly fire. Well to the dev or devs that said this let me explain something. I used to play a lot with horse archers and my friendly fire would never go higher than 400/600 points. I would avoid at all costs to ff my team mates. Why? The answer is really simple... if i kill a % of my allies units it will lead to several things, like the palyer will have or nurture a grudge against me and second those units won't help me later on. So there is no good ff, unless the player says "kill my units so we can save the situation.

f) wavering mechanic: "because this unit has less than ten units it will enter a state of wavering". Number of units: 10/45. Pretty sure that ten is not less than 10...

g) archers: barrage now is fun, they must have high armor piercing bullets, because they melt frontal charges from cav... Also it is fun to see how charging from 2 different spots with 2 units sometimes doesn t rout ranged units, or barely touches them. Sometimes it works, others it doesn't. Even timing the charge so it hits at the 4 second period seems to only work when the game wants (probably the reason it faisl sometimes is simple, i was hiting premium god like units...). Rear charges on tier 8 archers, from tier 7 cav 3 archers vs 1 unit of cav, and i don't do more than 30% damage. Charges working as intended, archers made of bricks, timed charge to no effect, alas i was able to almost kill all of those archers since they got strangled with my unit and couldn't fire.
The game went from archers under performing to over performing... Now archers get a lot of points, something that was not common or happened often. Now you will always see players who use archers on top of scoreboards. If ranged are to have infinite ammo at least give them a limit to how many times they can use barrage, apart from the cooldown. If not that reduce its damage, or give lower units increase damage/defense when facing high tier units. While and when i played arena, in the steam version, i remember that player with low tier units would get rewarded for facing high tier units (again, i've already mentioned this, so if Wargaming has done nothing it means they do not pay attention or they don't care, since i can't believe they are that incompetent...)

Initially i was only going to address the horrible experience a player has when he starts to play tier 5 and beyond, because wargaming has completly destroyed what used to be a fun game. I still don't understand what the Praetorians are doing, and they have even recruited some recently, but honestly i don't think Wargaming pays them any attention, and if they do they are doing a poor job. The issue about a high tier facing a low tier, even if the low tier is better equipped was brought up during alpha version and it is still an ongoing process. For every step forward this game takes there is a bunch of steps taken backwards...

So far the best experience i've had with a high tier facing mewas arty units, tier 10 versus my tier 7 cav. During the steam version, you would win the engagement, because, well, it makes sense that a horse, infantry or whatever, apart from range, kills an arty player during a melee engagement. Alas no! Wargaming thinks it is realistic for arty tier 10 to do 10 k damage to a cav unit. Only reason i didn't lose the fight (and oath was activated), was one! My team won the game by capturing the base. Apart from this disappointing new "feature", i can't express how disappointed i am with Wargaming, CA, and everyone that is working in this game.

When i arrived from university it was a treat to play this game (back when it was installed in steam) now i need to make an effort to even try to play it.

Not only the tier gap, the shady stats from premium units (Wargaming should just call them pay2win and thanks for your money), the lack of content ( that goes from lack of new and interesting units to the lack of new types of games) this game is just reaching a new low.

I remember when ppl started leaving the game because it was becoming dull as hell, i did not support them then. Now... well i should have done the same.....

The examples of how high tier units win a fight versus a unit that is just one tier lower are many, and i would like to elaborate, the thing is, i feel it will be like writing in the sand near the ocean, because Wargaming doesn't really care.

The constant desynch is also a new feature. if a player desynchs he should not pay for the consumables, but i guess it makes sense to pay for something i did not use. 

Thanks CA and Wargaming... 

Edited by Xarthare, 27 December 2017 - 12:19 AM.


Xarthare #2 Posted 27 December 2017 - 12:40 AM

    Centurion

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 382
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014
I agree byzi.

- charges are random and do random damage;

- heavy roman cav still loses to greek and barb cav in melee (if lower tier, this should not happen, at least it did not happen in the steam version);

- as we stated the game is reaching a new low. When it was reintroduced after the break a lot of ppl jumped back to it, but then they mostly left. An example of this is the Vanguard clan. The only remaining players are me and JOJO, even DRscot left the game.

- game rewards ppl who grind it. This is not a subject of being a no life, or as Wargaming carefully said "a dedicated player", the game just rewards grinding. Upgrading my units and my general abilities was as annoying as it is now;

-Steam version had issues, no point saying otherwise, but it was far more enjoyable than it is now (this is not nostalgia, it is just a fact)

- lack of content has reached a point where... well has reached no point....

- as a company i was expecting different trials and challenges, nothing, same old same old.... They could have, at least,created some cosmetic items or a progression bar to unlock certain items, this would have been a lot more interesting than the jump in and "dive into the world of Arena", but the excuses would burst in and say this is still alpha/beta. I've seen more content from indie games with less funds than from Wargaming.

- communication is bad as ever. At least the employees weren't rude as was the case in the steam version. Well unless they play with a different name.



I love how someone (so i can't be charged with anything won't say his full name, but stats with doggo) or whoever it was said the game would have more features and we would see a lot of new cool stuff. The problem of saying something in the twitter account or during a stream is it will remain there, unless you edit it out. I remember pointing to him, completly different topic here, that Charlemagne dlc was a cash grab and a bad dlc, he said for a game that was about to eceive its last dlc was expected. This logic applies to Rome 2, well 4 years later we see him praising the game (well he is an employee and i do not expect ppl to have the balls to say what they think today).

Gaming Companies nowadays are all about that money. Cash grabs...

Paganwitch #3 Posted 27 December 2017 - 12:53 AM

    Centurio Hastatus Prior

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 642
  • Member since:
    04-08-2017
its not pay to win premium units are fine thy bring diverzity..
steam unit i agree i miss amazonian rderes + bette rtalasia agrives look etc

Kingnikolaj #4 Posted 27 December 2017 - 08:10 AM

    Centurion

  • Praetorian
  • 471
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostXarthare, on 27 December 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

[...]  even DRscot left the game[...] 

 no he haven't


There is only one way to victory, and that is forward!

"This stuff will make you a God-damn sexual Tyrannosaurus... Just like me!" - Anzu: Girls und Panzer Abridged 

A_Mighty_Muffin - been shooting me since 2014 - may this long tradition die

                                                                     


drscot #5 Posted 27 December 2017 - 08:26 AM

    Munifex

  • Praetorian
  • 54
  • Member since:
    04-01-2014

I think you'll find that the reports of my leaving the game are greatly exaggerated...

In regards to the points made so far:

a) High vs. Low tiers
I'm going to answer 2 points with this topic; the Praetorians point and the tier difference one itself. The problem with game development is that there's never just one side to an argument, for example in this case, how do you think a player would feel after earning so much XP over so many battles and there's no tier difference? At the same time, the person who isn't that far yet suddenly has a much harder time getting to the same tier because he's playing against people who already have and they're slaughtering him easily. In regards to my second point, the Praetorians have raised this specific issue, among many others and solutions are being looked into, but they are slow. And every change on one aspect affects a hundred others and they all have to be balanced.
b) Premium units:
I actually disagree with this, I don't see the problem with the current premium units.

c) Missing units:
There's two reasons for these (imo). Either the unit is not ready (e.g. horse archers which have always been bugged and never fixed) or they're being saved for another faction (if CA wanted to introduce the Huns as a faction, this would be perfect).

d) Unkillable units:
You'll have to be more specific on this one: is this units that are routing, wavering or have completely collapsed and it's just the remains running back to base.

e) Good and bad friendly fire:
I 100% agree with you here, but it's personal opinion, I constantly have this argument with 

f) wavering mechanic:
Either a bug or bad wording - I would report it as such.

g) Archers - Barrage:
I understand your frustration with this, but the changes you ask for won't be immediate, they have to be balanced so that archers players also don't feel like they're just running around with paintball guns. I would personally agree that greek archers are OP and need to either have the damage reduced or the cooldown length increased. I play archers more than any unit and even I think it's ridiculous.

In regards to Byzantine's points:
Leaving player & Steam:
I think that a lot of people tend to view the steam version through rose tinted glasses, that is to say the remember the fun they had but forget how much more buggy, laggy etc. that version was. Looking back on old footage is frankly hilarious (watching units try to get around corners is painful). There were so many underlying changes made between the two versions that aren't immediately visible, but the game relies on to work better. In regards to players leaving, yes there's a lot of frustration with the mechanics and bugs that people are still finding are taking a long time to fix. Alongside this is the fact that people know there is a wipe coming which puts players off (I was one of them). 
Charges:
I can't really comment as much on charges as I don't use units that have them (play predominantly Leo and Cynane), but from watching other players, it doesn't look great. Charges still need a lot of work. I think they should take a look at Game of Thrones "loot train" sequence for the effects of cavalry charges on any infantry.
Morale:
I disagree with you here, the morale system in the previous alphas and steam version was pretty basic and didn't work very well (remember fear/war cry abuse ?). I like the current system, although as with everything it still needs some refining and balancing.
Turn and movement speed:
This one amuses me - there are so many calls that the game is too arcady and when CA make it more realistic, people complain. Turn speed shouldn't be high because all it does is cause havoc with so many mechanics (pikes just for a start) and is completely unrealistic.
Lag etc.:
There's something wrong here, because even on my potato computer (2012 iMac with a mobile GPU) I still never had issues with Arena. I have heard that players have had more issues recently but I've got a new PC since then so can't comment on that.

I personally am sticking with the game, I can see how much work the developers are putting into it, listening to your feedback and genuinely are trying to make a good game. Bad games don't make money lol. I understand your frustration with how slow it is, but remember that it still isn't a large team (CA are still developing it, WG are just publishing it) and people make mistakes. On top of that, they are trying to balance out a system that is insanely complicated, let alone the matchmaking system itself.


Edited by SUNTZU_drscot, 27 December 2017 - 09:15 AM.


arpe83 #6 Posted 27 December 2017 - 08:50 AM

    Optio Centuriae

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 118
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012
Sorry but every patch game is better for me.

Quo_usque_pro_victoria #7 Posted 27 December 2017 - 10:08 AM

    Centurio Hastatus Prior

  • Praetorian
  • 717
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

I saw the same thing with the wavering mechanic : 10 men left and wavering. But that happens with every unit, so I guess it's intended ?

Premium units are fine I think right now : they are not too good (even though Triarii with Oath could be quiet a pain to deal with), not too bad and are usually bringing something new to a faction's roster.

 

Roman cavalry does win against Greek cavalry in melee (and usually even if the Roman cavalry was charged first). Everytime, with every unit (except maybe at T5, I don't know about that one). Even the T7 Agema cavalry fully-upgraded loses against half a unit of Equites. However, Roman cavalry loses against Barbarian cavalry if it is leaded by Vercigetorix. And I'm pretty sure Roman cavalry wins against Arminius though in melee (without a charge).

Greek cavalry sued to be quite good in melee back in Steam (and it was able to sometimes win against Roman cavalry), but that's no longer the case.

 

The tier gap being quite high is an issue too, but it's not only because of the stats. Let me explain : a unit needs to be slightly better than the unit before it (that has all the upgrades). However, the bonuses upgrades give are quite high (especially at higher tiers), so looking at the upgrades and reducing the bonus they give and then reduce the difference of stats would help. That would also help with the balance, especially when it comes to cavalry and charge impact. Besides, some commander abilities receive an important buff if the commander is one tier higher. (Vengeance or Defiance, for example), so that is also making the tier difference more extreme.

 

I also agree with Barrage melting cavalry if it goes straight to the archers. That obliged me to always attack archers from behind if I want to have a chance of killing them. But the worst is probably javelins who can put caltrops almost instantly and stop your charge...

 

Charges need a slight rework too as it is causing some issues (units not causing any damage in the charge, Germanicus winning a charge against cavalry, Anvil's charge deflect debuff being almost uselss because of the stats), but solving them all is going to be quite challenging. The old system (before the charge mechanics changes) had some issues and this one has some, so I guess that something in between could work well.

 

 



Jakerp #8 Posted 27 December 2017 - 11:20 AM

    Centurio Hastatus Prior

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 527
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

Well game is extreme unbalanced after you get tier VII and matcmaking start to put you play against tier IX and X. It is just pure luck if matchmaking puts you into team with 5-6 tier IX and X player while other team only have one tier IX. If you end up into team witch dont have large number on IX and X tier players how you play dont matter anymore.

 

For example tier X Germanicus can just run directly into tier VII Leonidas hoplite phalanx and kill him faster that Leonidas can use shield bash once. If Leonidas is lucky he can take away 5% of hp away from that X tier Germanicus after he lost all three of his units. 5-10 sec and one unit is destroyed from Leonidas. Even X tier Roman sword javelin throws do MORE DAMAGE than VII tier Leonidas spear hoplite shield bash to X tier roman swords. Even hoplite phalanx dont matter anything.Going into perfect defensive position wont matter anything. Trying to blob one of X tier germanicus units with three VII tier spear hoplites wont matter anything that X tier still beat you. You might as well just disconnect as you just lose silver from those matches as nothing you do give you more than 200-300 aggression score.


Edited by Jakerp, 27 December 2017 - 11:24 AM.


PaiNzzz #9 Posted 27 December 2017 - 11:36 AM

    Optio Centuriae

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 197
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

I agree that high tier spread makes it impossible to fight against, and as tiers go up this issue gets worse because of the increasing bonuses. However, in beta there might be a bigger gap because of the lack of players to shorten queues.

 

At tier 5 with archers I was the only ranged player, and the enemy had tier 7 archers. As you know, Archers are prime target for other archers, so I got locked out of the combat due to the immense range difference. Once I got pushed back enough, cav did their trick and sent me to the next battle.

 

Knowing wargaming they will insist on keeping the +/-2 tier mm, which seems bad enough. A +/- 1 in general would be ideal, and if special or limited units could be mirrored (in tier) it would be nice. By special I mean artillery, or if the game is full melee and only 1 archer, mirror the archer etc.



SUNTZU_Mistrzu #10 Posted 27 December 2017 - 12:16 PM

    Centurio Hastatus Prior

  • Praetorian
  • 666
  • Member since:
    06-16-2012

I ran out of likes in this thread alone :D

I love the mature conversation we are having here and I will make sure to factor in once I get back home from Christmas ^^

If only more threads on this forum could be like this one... ;) 


How to unlock the "Ultimate YOLO MID RUSH" achievement: https://clips.twitch...llyKaleImGlitch

Quo_usque_pro_victoria #11 Posted 27 December 2017 - 12:22 PM

    Centurio Hastatus Prior

  • Praetorian
  • 717
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

View PostJakerp, on 27 December 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

Well game is extreme unbalanced after you get tier VII and matcmaking start to put you play against tier IX and X. It is just pure luck if matchmaking puts you into team with 5-6 tier IX and X player while other team only have one tier IX. If you end up into team witch dont have large number on IX and X tier players how you play dont matter anymore.

 

For example tier X Germanicus can just run directly into tier VII Leonidas hoplite phalanx and kill him faster that Leonidas can use shield bash once. If Leonidas is lucky he can take away 5% of hp away from that X tier Germanicus after he lost all three of his units. 5-10 sec and one unit is destroyed from Leonidas. Even X tier Roman sword javelin throws do MORE DAMAGE than VII tier Leonidas spear hoplite shield bash to X tier roman swords. Even hoplite phalanx dont matter anything.Going into perfect defensive position wont matter anything. Trying to blob one of X tier germanicus units with three VII tier spear hoplites wont matter anything that X tier still beat you. You might as well just disconnect as you just lose silver from those matches as nothing you do give you more than 200-300 aggression score.

 

Same thing happens with T5-7. T7 is basically unbeatable for a t5 unit.

Xarthare #12 Posted 27 December 2017 - 12:50 PM

    Centurion

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 382
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014

View PostKingnikolaj, on 27 December 2017 - 08:10 AM, said:

 no he haven't


King you shoudl support me :o!!!!!! No matter what!!!!
As a Praetorian you should kill your masters and ally with me ;P. Stab them in the back!!!!!!!!!
 

View PostSUNTZU_drscot, on 27 December 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

I think you'll find that the reports of my leaving the game are greatly exaggerated...

In regards to the points made so far:

a) High vs. Low tiers
I'm going to answer 2 points with this topic; the Praetorians point and the tier difference one itself. The problem with game development is that there's never just one side to an argument, for example in this case, how do you think a player would feel after earning so much XP over so many battles and there's no tier difference? At the same time, the person who isn't that far yet suddenly has a much harder time getting to the same tier because he's playing against people who already have and they're slaughtering him easily. In regards to my second point, the Praetorians have raised this specific issue, among many others and solutions are being looked into, but they are slow. And every change on one aspect affects a hundred others and they all have to be balanced.
b) Premium units:
I actually disagree with this, I don't see the problem with the current premium units.

c) Missing units:
There's two reasons for these (imo). Either the unit is not ready (e.g. horse archers which have always been bugged and never fixed) or they're being saved for another faction (if CA wanted to introduce the Huns as a faction, this would be perfect).

d) Unkillable units:
You'll have to be more specific on this one: is this units that are routing, wavering or have completely collapsed and it's just the remains running back to base.

e) Good and bad friendly fire:
I 100% agree with you here, but it's personal opinion, I constantly have this argument with 

f) wavering mechanic:
Either a bug or bad wording - I would report it as such.

g) Archers - Barrage:
I understand your frustration with this, but the changes you ask for won't be immediate, they have to be balanced so that archers players also don't feel like they're just running around with paintball guns. I would personally agree that greek archers are OP and need to either have the damage reduced or the cooldown length increased. I play archers more than any unit and even I think it's ridiculous.

In regards to Byzantine's points:
Leaving player & Steam:
I think that a lot of people tend to view the steam version through rose tinted glasses, that is to say the remember the fun they had but forget how much more buggy, laggy etc. that version was. Looking back on old footage is frankly hilarious (watching units try to get around corners is painful). There were so many underlying changes made between the two versions that aren't immediately visible, but the game relies on to work better. In regards to players leaving, yes there's a lot of frustration with the mechanics and bugs that people are still finding are taking a long time to fix. Alongside this is the fact that people know there is a wipe coming which puts players off (I was one of them). 
Charges:
I can't really comment as much on charges as I don't use units that have them (play predominantly Leo and Cynane), but from watching other players, it doesn't look great. Charges still need a lot of work. I think they should take a look at Game of Thrones "loot train" sequence for the effects of cavalry charges on any infantry.
Morale:
I disagree with you here, the morale system in the previous alphas and steam version was pretty basic and didn't work very well (remember fear/war cry abuse ?). I like the current system, although as with everything it still needs some refining and balancing.
Turn and movement speed:
This one amuses me - there are so many calls that the game is too arcady and when CA make it more realistic, people complain. Turn speed shouldn't be high because all it does is cause havoc with so many mechanics (pikes just for a start) and is completely unrealistic.
Lag etc.:
There's something wrong here, because even on my potato computer (2012 iMac with a mobile GPU) I still never had issues with Arena. I have heard that players have had more issues recently but I've got a new PC since then so can't comment on that.

I personally am sticking with the game, I can see how much work the developers are putting into it, listening to your feedback and genuinely are trying to make a good game. Bad games don't make money lol. I understand your frustration with how slow it is, but remember that it still isn't a large team (CA are still developing it, WG are just publishing it) and people make mistakes. On top of that, they are trying to balance out a system that is insanely complicated, let alone the matchmaking system itself.


Scot you are supposed to be my buddy :o, no matter what you should stand by me, oh stand by me lalala :p, just kidding.

We all suffer from a certain nostalgia and not, this is like a coin, it has 2 sides. The current state of the game is not good as it used to be. Since the graphic improvement from a certain period i won't mention, since it can break nda.

As i said down the line, i don't want or wish for warcry spam, since i was not one of those players, and it pained me to see ppl using scipio as a spam oath or warcry. The issue right now is charges are random, and they were much better in the initial sessions, before beta.

Well you and king aren't as active as you used to be. That may be for several reasons, same as I, but i think that somewhere you must feel a little displeased with the game and its current progress, even if you can't say it for normal reasons.

Wargame can't balance things effectively, they tone down one unit and power up another one in a ridiculous way. Before barrage was as good as it is now we would not see as many archer players reaching the top leaderboards (apart from mistrzu, when he wasn't nuked by someone ;P). The damage output of archers is just to great right now. And the caltrops, i think Quo mentioned this, is unreal as well. Here i was killing a tier 8 archer unit with a lot of effort and they throw caltrops mercilessly to me all the time and on top of me. Not only that, but my charge worked half the time there, which was a pain. i eventually destroyed most of that unit, but it took more time than it should.

 

View PostQuo_usque_pro_victoria, on 27 December 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

I saw the same thing with the wavering mechanic : 10 men left and wavering. But that happens with every unit, so I guess it's intended ?

Premium units are fine I think right now : they are not too good (even though Triarii with Oath could be quiet a pain to deal with), not too bad and are usually bringing something new to a faction's roster.

 

Roman cavalry does win against Greek cavalry in melee (and usually even if the Roman cavalry was charged first). Everytime, with every unit (except maybe at T5, I don't know about that one). Even the T7 Agema cavalry fully-upgraded loses against half a unit of Equites. However, Roman cavalry loses against Barbarian cavalry if it is leaded by Vercigetorix. And I'm pretty sure Roman cavalry wins against Arminius though in melee (without a charge).

Greek cavalry sued to be quite good in melee back in Steam (and it was able to sometimes win against Roman cavalry), but that's no longer the case.

 

The tier gap being quite high is an issue too, but it's not only because of the stats. Let me explain : a unit needs to be slightly better than the unit before it (that has all the upgrades). However, the bonuses upgrades give are quite high (especially at higher tiers), so looking at the upgrades and reducing the bonus they give and then reduce the difference of stats would help. That would also help with the balance, especially when it comes to cavalry and charge impact. Besides, some commander abilities receive an important buff if the commander is one tier higher. (Vengeance or Defiance, for example), so that is also making the tier difference more extreme.

 

I also agree with Barrage melting cavalry if it goes straight to the archers. That obliged me to always attack archers from behind if I want to have a chance of killing them. But the worst is probably javelins who can put caltrops almost instantly and stop your charge...

 

Charges need a slight rework too as it is causing some issues (units not causing any damage in the charge, Germanicus winning a charge against cavalry, Anvil's charge deflect debuff being almost uselss because of the stats), but solving them all is going to be quite challenging. The old system (before the charge mechanics changes) had some issues and this one has some, so I guess that something in between could work well.

 

 


In the field of Law we would call this an extensive interpretation of the Law ;p (or restritctive, depending what we want to do here xD), The unit still had 7 k hp, which is more than enough for ten units. As i said before cav armies should not suffer from this mechanic, this applies to infantry and other units that have more than 45 units, when cav reaches 10 units that is roughly 33% of their force. This can be viewed in 2 ways, a) lazyness from Wargaming and CA, or b) a honest mistake.


 

View PostByzantineLatinikon, on 27 December 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

To the morale point: Yes, its true there was thos sort of problem , where multiple warcries and fears stacked. Neither the morale system mainly based on unit health wasnt great. But as i mentioned before, combined health and flanking morale systems would make it probably more interesting, as the small units wont be running around the field and would eventually rout. Sure, it will require some polishing too.

 

To the turn speed: i have maintained for a long time a firm position that it should be the same as on steam. But the truth is, that the steam version was really for more "hardcore" players, but still manageable for casual players too. So i see the point in decreasing it down, make it more realistic, but in the end it turned out to be just like old CAs balancing, from something very mobile and fast they Made units immobile and slow. There Has to be a balance between realism, balance and accuracy. Of course, we Can talk a lot about historical accuracy and  realism, but in the end, they have to be sacrifised for balance and for some "competetive" scene. So thats why i think decreasing it than much wasnt th best idea. So again, as i already have mentioned in my post before, make a compromise, put the turn speed and speed of units somewhere in between steam version and this version. I think it will be satisfying for both casual players and competetive ones as well. I mostly mean cav and infantry.

Well pikes by themselves are different story. I think they really need either to disable the turn speed while in phalanx or just reduce it to minimum.


Byzi i agree with you, and since Scot mentioned this i will address it here, i do not wish for warcry spam.
 

View PostJakerp, on 27 December 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

Well game is extreme unbalanced after you get tier VII and matcmaking start to put you play against tier IX and X. It is just pure luck if matchmaking puts you into team with 5-6 tier IX and X player while other team only have one tier IX. If you end up into team witch dont have large number on IX and X tier players how you play dont matter anymore.

 

For example tier X Germanicus can just run directly into tier VII Leonidas hoplite phalanx and kill him faster that Leonidas can use shield bash once. If Leonidas is lucky he can take away 5% of hp away from that X tier Germanicus after he lost all three of his units. 5-10 sec and one unit is destroyed from Leonidas. Even X tier Roman sword javelin throws do MORE DAMAGE than VII tier Leonidas spear hoplite shield bash to X tier roman swords. Even hoplite phalanx dont matter anything.Going into perfect defensive position wont matter anything. Trying to blob one of X tier germanicus units with three VII tier spear hoplites wont matter anything that X tier still beat you. You might as well just disconnect as you just lose silver from those matches as nothing you do give you more than 200-300 aggression score.


You are right the game is damn unballanced, but the problem is not at tier 7, it starts at tier 5 since you can get queued with tier 7 ppl.
 

View PostSUNTZU_Mistrzu, on 27 December 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

I ran out of likes in this thread alone :D

I love the mature conversation we are having here and I will make sure to factor in once I get back home from Christmas ^^

If only more threads on this forum could be like this one... ;) 

 

Mistrzu don't go through that alley please mate XD, or this will become like a certain thread i once created during alpha xD.
Btw Mistrzu when clan tags are available in game i expect an awesome tag for myself ;p. I think tags should be made by the clan leaders, and approved by the staff, so we don't see any racist, xenophobic or homophobic symbols)



If i've forgotten any important point i'm sorry, since working and replying to everyone is a difficult thing to do.
We should shwo Wargaming that we are unhappy with their actions, otherwise they will think everything is going the right alley. This was an issue with the Battlefield alike scorboard which i strongly disagreed. Thank god it was reversed, down the line.

Also Scot, no game is perfect and this is no Utopia:p, but unless we make some noise and fuss things won't change. The bright side of this game is the community, i've met a lot of nic ppl, and most of them replied to me here ;p. I've also met terrible ppl, but all games have this illness. Regarding the game itself, and not the community, there are a lot of stuff they should change. The empty promisses CA devs made us stroke a deep blow, this is why you should not claim anything before it is done, otherwise you just leave room for frustration. In certain indie games i've played the devs actually played with the community and talked with us, the community. Wargaming and CA are a big company that can hire more ppl to do this. Reading the comments itself is not enough. From my experience i ve played 3 times with devs, i'm not saying they should be online 24/7, but they should be playing the game more often, and when they do try to get someone that understands the game a little more ;p. Still remember one dev/or whatever we call them that wanted me to misuse my cavalry, bad bad person ;p. Remember another one, sadly not the name, who thanked me for saving his units when they were in danger (this is what i expect in terms of behaviour towards your team)

Edited by Xarthare, 27 December 2017 - 12:55 PM.


Xeir #13 Posted 27 December 2017 - 02:14 PM

    Praefectus Castrorum

  • Praetorian
  • 1,245
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

Block Quote

 We should shwo Wargaming that we are unhappy with their actions, otherwise they will think everything is going the right alley. This was an issue with the Battlefield alike scorboard which i strongly disagreed. Thank god it was reversed, down the line

 Wargaming as publisher is collecting our feedback and sending it to ca, Ca w from they side also are reading our posts.

How you can be unhappy if someone is sending your feedback to developers.. Your displeasure should be aimed to game developers, exactly talking that CA didin't explained clearly enough they point of view to you. But this can be not possible since you probably noticed for the last 3 years, they almost can't write about anythting related to many things in Public. (And here come Preatorians)

 

 

Block Quote

 The empty promisses CA devs made us stroke a deep blow, this is why you should not claim anything before it is done, otherwise you just leave room for frustration. In certain indie games i've played the devs actually played with the community and talked with us, the community. Wargaming and CA are a big company that can hire more ppl to do this. Reading the comments itself is not enough. From my experience i ve played 3 times with devs, i'm not saying they should be online 24/7, but they should be playing the game more often, and when they do try to get someone that understands the game a little more ;p

Developers dealing with various things, like in any job you can't exept to guy who is responding for creating map need known how to be Op, or programmer what is mainly interesed in statistics about players feelings

From that they have QA what is testing game for them and from second side they collecting data from statistics.


Edited by Xeir, 27 December 2017 - 02:20 PM.


ThatPikeGuy #14 Posted 27 December 2017 - 02:16 PM

    Optio Centuriae

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 234
  • Member since:
    06-04-2017

I'm getting pretty pissed about the lack of balancing in high tiers. It's where CA could've experimented with the balancing because the most seasoned players are playing there but no, they need numbers or something idk how they balance the game anymore. And when balance changes are made, they're relatively rare compared to the fancy graphical changes that we've seen in this closed beta test, plus they're completely negligible on high tiers in most cases

 

What players have been crying about for a very long time, have only been addressed in low tiers like with cav, slingers, pikes, archers, etc.

High tiers still have to put up with these stupid imbalanced units/abilities that make for very "skillful" gameplay. Seeing repositioning Leo pikes turn around every 35s, archers barraging every minute, vengeance/defiance climbing to extreme dps output, etc., all while lower tier players are stuck in these high tier games and there's seriously nothing they can do anything about it. I mean what the hell happened to the high tiers - the games are decided by which team has the highest tiers and not by strategy or positioning like on a version some people don't want to talk about.

 

Speaking of Steam version, I'd rather have a less polished game that is fun to play instead of a more polished game that gives crippling depression to anyone trying to play high tier games. I know how buggy the game was on Steam and besides, we already have pathfinding that is similar to Steam version. Don't give me any arguments on how this version was better than Steam version, but you can try lol


pls buff pike surfing

ipurkur #15 Posted 27 December 2017 - 05:08 PM

    Munifex

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 12
  • Member since:
    12-20-2017
*edit

Edited by Jbnn, 02 January 2018 - 10:48 AM.
Spam


Xarthare #16 Posted 27 December 2017 - 05:28 PM

    Centurion

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 382
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014

View PostThatPikeGuy, on 27 December 2017 - 02:16 PM, said:

I'm getting pretty pissed about the lack of balancing in high tiers. It's where CA could've experimented with the balancing because the most seasoned players are playing there but no, they need numbers or something idk how they balance the game anymore. And when balance changes are made, they're relatively rare compared to the fancy graphical changes that we've seen in this closed beta test, plus they're completely negligible on high tiers in most cases

 

What players have been crying about for a very long time, have only been addressed in low tiers like with cav, slingers, pikes, archers, etc.

High tiers still have to put up with these stupid imbalanced units/abilities that make for very "skillful" gameplay. Seeing repositioning Leo pikes turn around every 35s, archers barraging every minute, vengeance/defiance climbing to extreme dps output, etc., all while lower tier players are stuck in these high tier games and there's seriously nothing they can do anything about it. I mean what the hell happened to the high tiers - the games are decided by which team has the highest tiers and not by strategy or positioning like on a version some people don't want to talk about.

 

Speaking of Steam version, I'd rather have a less polished game that is fun to play instead of a more polished game that gives crippling depression to anyone trying to play high tier games. I know how buggy the game was on Steam and besides, we already have pathfinding that is similar to Steam version. Don't give me any arguments on how this version was better than Steam version, but you can try lol

 

Played the game yesterday for 2 hours and everything you said paiku plus the issues i mentioned made it really depressing. There was a game where we had the lower tier units. We were wining, till the moment a high tier player was away from the main fight and joined in. The game was doomed to fail because high tier units will win vs low tier. Heavy will lose to light in the open field and even if they flank the unit, archers will take ages to die, if attacked by cavalry (since the counter of archers is cav i would like to see it performing as it should, and not the archers runing away, sometimes untouched).

The current state of the game favors high tier players, it doesn't favor skill or tactics. As i said in the steam version (with all the problems it had) a lower tier unit would get more xp for facing high tier units. In most cases if the player had played its card well he would win, here unless the high tier unit is overrun it won't lose.

Xarthare #17 Posted 27 December 2017 - 05:32 PM

    Centurion

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 382
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014

View Postipurkur, on 27 December 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

*edit 

 

This stands for ;P?

 



Weskerrr #18 Posted 27 December 2017 - 05:35 PM

    Centurio Hastatus Prior

  • Praetorian
  • 692
  • Member since:
    03-01-2013

Oh boy.... Here's my, obviously subjective, look at the presented issues:

A) "if you have a high tier unit you will win the engagement" No. I've beated units of the same type as my own that were a tier higher multiple times now and I've even seen a unit of Hastati somehow decimate a unit of Legionaries in 1 vs 1 engagement. Saying that you'll win just by having higher tier units is straight up not true, seeing as commanders and their skills have an extremely large impact, especially when it comes to upgraded skills. You can have Oath on Scipio unlocked all you want, but if the other guy fires up his Vengeance, even though he's playing units 1-2 tiers lower than yours, they'll still murder you becuase of the massive bonuses some of the skills give you when you upgrade them. While I do agree that the difference between units has to get more streamlined across the board, not just on a few specific tiers, but all 10.

B) My only gripe with the premium units is that they are special, that Trarii are the only spears the Romans get and such. But it's far from being P2W, it's pay to be exclusive. If those units were just flat-out better than others, it would be pay to win, but the current premium units offer a different playstyle to each faction, rather than just being better than standard units.


C) I can see why some units have been removed. I still don't agree with it, but I don't care about it that much, because it gives you an incentive to try all the factions out. Something completely pointless imo, but that might be different from the perspective of a completely new person to Arena.

D) Really? This is a part of how the game's been destroyed? Being able to kill unimportant units that are just kinda running around aimlessly without the ability to attack just to get like 20 more points is something equally unimportant. Who cares whether there are 4 guys left running around the place if the literally serve no other purpose whatsoever? This is less of an issue with the game and more an issue with people trying to feel better about their performance by doing nothing that helps anyone.

E) "there is good and bad friendly fire. Well to the dev or devs that said this let me explain something."
Multiple things here: First off, this has it's roots in the community, not the devs, so you're accusing the wrong people.
Secondly, there absolutely is something called good friendly fire. You might wipe out my last 20 men that are gonna hold a chokepoint for a few more seconds, but you'll take down more than twice as many enemies doing so, which are posing a threat to our base/flank. It's good FF because you're using my units' certain death to the whole team's advantage. This absolutely is good friendly fire. Bad FF is when there's no need for you to reduce your allies manpower, but you still do so just to get more points/kills. That's a D move right there and absolutely deserves to be punished.

F) "Number of units: 10/45. Pretty sure that ten is not less than 10..." You're splitting hair at this point. I partially agreed to some of the points, this one's just a matter of throwing enough crapto the wall and hoping some of it will stick.

 

G) I tend to reduce the HP of ranged units by >60% when I charge them, so I have no idea what might be the cause for you. I do agree that barrage is just disgusting when it comes to it's damage/AP damage.


Here's a personal gripe I have though:
"I still don't understand what the Praetorians are doing, and they have even recruited some recently, but honestly i don't think Wargaming pays them any attention, and if they do they are doing a poor job."

What we are doing is trying to make the game a better experience for all of us, Praetorians, experienced testers, as well as newcomer.
How that works however is something completely different. The amount of blame WG get for publishing this game is astonishing to me, especially considering a lot of people don't seem to get that it's still  CA making the game. There's also no way to tell how much attention the devs pay us, because the discussions we have are off limits for non-Praetorians, meaning that opinions and whole thought processes stay behind "locked doors" so accusing anyone of not listening to us is a claim which has absolutely no evidence to support it.


I kind of entered rant mode here because it's just getting to a point where nothing anyone says or does will change the minds of those who are commited to just saying that something's crap because their suggestions haven't been implemented immediately.

 

For those who do give half a damn about what I'm trying to say here: We're constantly trying to find more permanent solutions to a multitude of issues, some of which are more difficult find, of course. First of all, determining what an issue is and what's just people whining about anything is a very important part in this and it's something that we are, contrary to popular belief, communicating in order to do correctly, not just swiftly. We're also reading through forum posts like these and state our thoughts about them, but we're not all sitting in the same room 8 hours a day so that we find a solution for something in an instant. We have private lives just like anyone else and we're doing this to help the devs, the community, but most of all Arena itself.

If you found anything of what I've said offensive, I do apologize in advance, none of it was meant to be insulting. However I've explained many of these things before and I'm just getting tired of discussing the excact same things a hundred times.


Patch notes for Closed Beta will be very very very very long.
Kappa
You can quote me on that ~Mistrzu

Xarthare #19 Posted 27 December 2017 - 05:59 PM

    Centurion

  • Closed Alpha Gladiator
  • 382
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014

View PostWeskerrr, on 27 December 2017 - 05:35 PM, said:

Oh boy.... Here's my, obviously subjective, look at the presented issues:

A) "if you have a high tier unit you will win the engagement" No. I've beated units of the same type as my own that were a tier higher multiple times now and I've even seen a unit of Hastati somehow decimate a unit of Legionaries in 1 vs 1 engagement. Saying that you'll win just by having higher tier units is straight up not true, seeing as commanders and their skills have an extremely large impact, especially when it comes to upgraded skills. You can have Oath on Scipio unlocked all you want, but if the other guy fires up his Vengeance, even though he's playing units 1-2 tiers lower than yours, they'll still murder you becuase of the massive bonuses some of the skills give you when you upgrade them. While I do agree that the difference between units has to get more streamlined across the board, not just on a few specific tiers, but all 10.

B) My only gripe with the premium units is that they are special, that Trarii are the only spears the Romans get and such. But it's far from being P2W, it's pay to be exclusive. If those units were just flat-out better than others, it would be pay to win, but the current premium units offer a different playstyle to each faction, rather than just being better than standard units.


C) I can see why some units have been removed. I still don't agree with it, but I don't care about it that much, because it gives you an incentive to try all the factions out. Something completely pointless imo, but that might be different from the perspective of a completely new person to Arena.

D) Really? This is a part of how the game's been destroyed? Being able to kill unimportant units that are just kinda running around aimlessly without the ability to attack just to get like 20 more points is something equally unimportant. Who cares whether there are 4 guys left running around the place if the literally serve no other purpose whatsoever? This is less of an issue with the game and more an issue with people trying to feel better about their performance by doing nothing that helps anyone.

E) "there is good and bad friendly fire. Well to the dev or devs that said this let me explain something."
Multiple things here: First off, this has it's roots in the community, not the devs, so you're accusing the wrong people.
Secondly, there absolutely is something called good friendly fire. You might wipe out my last 20 men that are gonna hold a chokepoint for a few more seconds, but you'll take down more than twice as many enemies doing so, which are posing a threat to our base/flank. It's good FF because you're using my units' certain death to the whole team's advantage. This absolutely is good friendly fire. Bad FF is when there's no need for you to reduce your allies manpower, but you still do so just to get more points/kills. That's a D move right there and absolutely deserves to be punished.

F) "Number of units: 10/45. Pretty sure that ten is not less than 10..." You're splitting hair at this point. I partially agreed to some of the points, this one's just a matter of throwing enough crapto the wall and hoping some of it will stick.

 

G) I tend to reduce the HP of ranged units by >60% when I charge them, so I have no idea what might be the cause for you. I do agree that barrage is just disgusting when it comes to it's damage/AP damage.


Here's a personal gripe I have though:
"I still don't understand what the Praetorians are doing, and they have even recruited some recently, but honestly i don't think Wargaming pays them any attention, and if they do they are doing a poor job."

What we are doing is trying to make the game a better experience for all of us, Praetorians, experienced testers, as well as newcomer.
How that works however is something completely different. The amount of blame WG get for publishing this game is astonishing to me, especially considering a lot of people don't seem to get that it's still  CA making the game. There's also no way to tell how much attention the devs pay us, because the discussions we have are off limits for non-Praetorians, meaning that opinions and whole thought processes stay behind "locked doors" so accusing anyone of not listening to us is a claim which has absolutely no evidence to support it.


I kind of entered rant mode here because it's just getting to a point where nothing anyone says or does will change the minds of those who are commited to just saying that something's crap because their suggestions haven't been implemented immediately.

 

For those who do give half a damn about what I'm trying to say here: We're constantly trying to find more permanent solutions to a multitude of issues, some of which are more difficult find, of course. First of all, determining what an issue is and what's just people whining about anything is a very important part in this and it's something that we are, contrary to popular belief, communicating in order to do correctly, not just swiftly. We're also reading through forum posts like these and state our thoughts about them, but we're not all sitting in the same room 8 hours a day so that we find a solution for something in an instant. We have private lives just like anyone else and we're doing this to help the devs, the community, but most of all Arena itself.

If you found anything of what I've said offensive, I do apologize in advance, none of it was meant to be insulting. However I've explained many of these things before and I'm just getting tired of discussing the excact same things a hundred times.

 

If a problem is created by the community. like friendly fire, and a dev says there is good and bad friendly fire, this creates a bigger issue. the dev is someone with auctoritas that we should lsiten, he may or may not be directly linked to the tuning of the game. But how friendly fire works now is just bad, it worked a lot better in the steam version. I still remember, and ahave a picture somewhere, where ppl would get  -7000 point for abusing friendly fire or just piking the entire team for fun.

About cavalry it is not throwing crap. If i have 10 units and they drop from top morale to 12 it creates a huge problem, and when the description says "this unit has less than 10 units" if it says less than it is not the same as ten or more. Cavs players with 10 units can still do a lot of damage in the battlefield if they know what they are doing, even with 5 units. I understand why this horrible mechanic was implemented, but i don't have to agree with it, just because some ppl used to run and hide with one unit.

About charging archers it is pretty much random what happens. I know when to time my charges, and sometimes, under the same circumstances, they perform completley different.

It is funny how no one talked about arty units being able to take a huge slice of my cav units health. Is this not game breaking ? Their melee stats, compared to horses, are horrible. They should not perform as well as they did. 45 units of cav (under oath) should not struggle against 3 units of arty in melee.

Well you can win, probably 10 % of the times, if the following circumstances are present:

 a) (this is an example, bare with me) if you have a tier 8 unit with a tier 10 general,

 

b) if the player was not paying attention. or

 

c) other exceptions because for each rule their is an exception.

Wesker  i think it is the job of the Praetorians to report these situations and read the forums, hence why they gave you the position. I don't think it is the job of the player to search in the forum for all threads to see if he agrees or disagrees with what has been stated. This thread is not simple and presents valid points and there is some unhappiness with the current state of the game. Yes you can say that applies to everything, but if one person chooses to ignore it then we won't go anyway.

I like you, but you started with the wrong foot here saying here we go again ;p. As a Praetorian this is part of your job, so saying here we go again is not the best way to be cordial ;p. Don't think you were offensive, i think you just took the wrong approach.

The way they fix stuff is just to slow, in some parts at least. And i can give you some examples:

a) i created  a thread about the issues the K/D scoreboard created, months later i received a reply. Yes it doesn't need to be in the same day, but probably not months after.

b) took them months to fix the cavalry pathfind, which was horrible for several months. A unit that relies in speed and maneuverability and gets stuck in every corner doing the harlem shake is not acceptable.

c) increasing graphics, as paiku said, wasn't a necessary thing. This is linked to a matter of how the market works. And as someone who studied this in university i understand why they changed it. The graphics from the Steam version were good. I want a game that works properly, not a game that is shiny. 


Since you are a Praetorian now explain me one thing. There is a stream, don't recall which, that one of the devs said "the skill tree has been reworked and making it more custom to the player. I have to say that this is a lie  x'D. In the end all generals are the same, it is just a matter of time, so there is no diversity between Germanicus, just a matter of time till you get Germanicus skills upgraded. What i perceive as a custom General is lets take this as an example:

a) i'm a Scipio player and when i start upgrading my skill tree i could focus on having a cav with more speed, more attack, more maneuverability, more morale or decrese the morale of the enemy. We could upgrade the normal tree and then have a second tree focusing just one of the paths i've mentioned, if the player wished he could eventually redo that second tree. He would have to reset the second tree, not the first one. This is what i call custom, not what we have.

Another thing that annoys me is how expensive the units have become, specially high tier ones. They weren't as expensive in the steam version. legatus costed 144 k now they cost 197 k, but this is a complete different matter. Yes i remember that to upgrade wrath of mars i had to pay 22 k to level 10, but the thing is now i have so any little skills to upgrade that i m not sure if the overall is not more expensive. I believe it is honestly.

 

The way vengeance and vercingetorix ability are working is just disgusting as well. The problem is not only barrage.

Some issues will resurface again and other will appear while i write the thread. I think t is better for me to place all the issues in one thread that creating 10 different threads. Doing this i won't demand more of you praetorians nor the devs, since they can read all the issues in one thread. Sadly i have a limited amount of words for titles, and they should be short and effective.

The problem with what you have said said, and i quote "I've beated units of the same type as my own that were a tier higher multiple times now and I've even seen a unit of Hastati somehow decimate a unit of Legionaries in 1 vs 1 engagement. Saying that you'll win just by having higher tier units is straight up not true", is simple, this is not what normally happens, and the opposite happens a lot more often than it should. Most matches when ppl realize they are facing high tier units they just lose the will to play. Sadly i did not take pictures, but yesterday a guy said something like i'm going to sit back and watch you get slaughter by high tier units. This is not an isolated case dude. High tier vs low tier is a huge problem right now.
 


Edited by Xarthare, 27 December 2017 - 06:12 PM.


Weskerrr #20 Posted 27 December 2017 - 07:32 PM

    Centurio Hastatus Prior

  • Praetorian
  • 692
  • Member since:
    03-01-2013
I'll reply to some of your points in this post (not to the ones I've already commented on, because it wouldn't lead to anything constructive, but to the two of us just running around in a cirlce and I don't want us to waste time on stuff like that).

One of thse points is artillery. You might take my word for it, you might not, it's entirely up to you, but we're aware of it, we've been discussing it and there is no simple solution to it, like just decreasing this, or increasing that. I despise what artillery can do to infantry, cav being less of an issue to me, seeing as we can ride around most of their shots as well as pose a massive threat to them. I'm not sure how much of what I want to say about this I'm actually allowed to say, but in order to make sure I stay within the bounds I'm supposed to stay in, all I'll say here is that we know about it, the devs know about it, not just from us, but from you (the non-praetorian players) as well. I'd love to just state what I know here, but I highly doubt I'm allowed to do so. For now, know that this is something bothering us at least as much as it bothers you and something that we'd like to improve as well.

Next is the Scoreboard thread  you've mentioned (well, the multitude of them made by the community). It's less of an issue than a lot of the other points you've mentioned, especially the kind of BS damage Barrage (and, of course, other abilities, I was just using this as the most extreme example) can inflict. It took them months, but they've fixed the pathfinding during those months as well as making much-needed quality-of-life improvements to Greek spears. What I'm trying to say here is that certain changes do come at a very slow pace (figuring out why the pathfinding dance happened in the first place was probably difficult enough, nevermind fixing the damn thing), but there's usually a variety of fixes that are introduced at any given time.

The thing about the graphics settings is something I fully support you and ThatPikeGuy on. I mean, hell, I still play stuff from 2002, see if I care about graphics. But like you just said, it's a sensible choice from a marketing standpoint, even though I'd much much rather see balancing changes as well as different choices for commanders, where we can pick and choose certain bonuses, but lose the ability to gain others. Like making Warcry incredibly powerful for prolonged combat by going all-in on reducing melee defence, but making it only reduce enemy morale by 10 or something. Essentially to give us a vast variety of builds to create.

This brings me to the next point I'd like to address, which is what you've asked me about due to that Paetorian tag I've recently recieved under my name. (Quick tip, my "rank" has nothing to do with that, so this response can only come from me as a joe-average tester. If you're interested in that, keep reading, if not, skip the paragraph, I won't address other points here).
The point I'm on about being "The skill tree has been reworked and making it more custom to the player."
Presumably, means that this is my interpretation of it - might not even be correct - is that it allows each individual player to rank up whichever aspect of a skill they wish while also ranking up their units and commanders. Meaning it's something like what I just said I'd like to see with the whole builds situation, but the key difference is that at some point, you can have it all. The way I'd like to see it is specializing in one thing, but neglecting the other, as a price. Resetting that would then cost gold, so that, depending on how much you pay, you get a high % of your spent free XP back, so that there's still profit in this for the devs, a chance for us to re-think something after messing it up, as well as a more interesting way of comitting to a playstyle, rather than just straight upgrades.

About the last point where, again, tier difference has been mentioned, I've already stated my mind. I won't speak for any other Praetorians, out of respect, more than a lack of knowledge of their opinions, but I'm still of the firm belief, that units' stats need to be more streamlined between tiers, especially higher up in the tiers, where the Roman heavy infantry line just straight-up outclasses the lighter one (Because let's give them some main battle tanks as infantry, why not? *sarcasm mode off*).


Edit:

"Before, my newly unlocked T8 inf was still getting destroyed be upgraded T7 inf."

I honestly think that exactly this is the answer to your question about what could have gone wrong, Byz. I remember a lot of complaining about grinding to unlock a unit and then still getting killed by the previous unit with the mandatory upgrades. Taking that into consideration during a 1 year break and then just blindly implementing it is likely what caused the massive differences between tiers. CA had no feedback to go on after they went offline and they solely relied on themselves to re-balance the game. Backfired quite awfully in the end, but there might be a silver lining somewhere, especially now that new Praetorians have been recruited, who might give the discussions a bit of fresh air.


Edited by Weskerrr, 27 December 2017 - 07:38 PM.

Patch notes for Closed Beta will be very very very very long.
Kappa
You can quote me on that ~Mistrzu




2 user(s) are reading this topic