Knights and Merchants.net Forum

PostPosted: **01 Mar 2013, 09:17**

Oh god. You are even a worse example of a conservative than TDL

Siegfried i advise you watching To´s latest shoutcast. Watch the base he shows from me, axefighters.
I did, of course. He shows base building. Nothing of this is hindered by the fighting mechanism.

But it is. In current release there's no difference between lancers and axemen, except that axemen are more expensive. Fighting mechanism makes axemen useless because, even if they're more expensive and more powerful in direct fight (in a one without shooters) against lancers, it is the number of melee that matters more - because xbows are too powerful against melee. In RC release, axemen (and other shielded units) are much better in fight because they don't suffer from xbows as much. And because of that, they actually can use their bonus against lancers, making lancers a unit that's good against scouts only. We believe that's better. First, because lanceman wasn't intended to be the main army unit, more like a support unit against horses. Second, because there should be a reward for a player who is able to make a better quality army - axemen. In current release, the advantage of axemen was non-existant, because every single battle (unless your enemy is retarded/has gone melee only etc.) has both melee and (x)bows at both sides.

My point is: Revo made axefighters because they are actually useful now. They were not in current release. If he made them there, it would be a waste of resources, better make additional militia and/or lancers, or use the extra bit of wood somehow else.

You prefer mass lancers + xbows or do you prefer more variation in tactics?
If you mean my general liking: I prefer the variation, and that's what I get in the official release right now.
If you mean my specific gameplay: I go for scout+xbow with militia-aid whenever possible (i.e. when marketplace is available). So the fighting change would indeed make my strategy even more powerful.

Now, that's really difficult for me to understand. I also prefer the variation, but (sorry for generalizing) if someone makes something different than lancers+xbows, then he just prefers to have varied army more than using the best (overpowered) army combo. So, he's just making his army worse on purpose. In RC, having various combos actually makes sense.

PostPosted: **01 Mar 2013, 11:44**

I did, of course. He shows base building. Nothing of this is hindered by the fighting mechanism.
So you saw the variety of units being used in the test release. Archers for example are useful again.

If you mean my general liking: I prefer the variation, and that's what I get in the official release right now.
If you mean my specific gameplay: I go for scout+xbow with militia-aid whenever possible (i.e. when marketplace is available). So the fighting change would indeed make my strategy even more powerful.

Yapp. Have you played a game with foreign people out there in the official release before that post?
Yes I did play quite a few games in the old release and you know I really don't see the variation you see.
- Xbows? Everyone got those because without them you have no chance.
- Scouts? Useless in the old release because people love pikes/lancers. They won't be a good choice either next release.
- Swords? Making those in old release is a waste of your iron, why not make pikes since they only have less attack there.
- Axefighters? Same story as swords.
- Archers? No need making them, they won't hurt anyone.

I can give my opinion on every unit type this way, but really you only got a few unit types that are useful in r4179. In the old release the best way to play is lancers + xbows, if you do this well you'll win every game. You probably base your opinion of r4279 on the amount of rushes you saw, because you mentioned that mass militia is important.

About your unit combo, it will die quite quick next release.

agreed, in the old release there is only need for 1 shielded unit, and that is the knight. And even so you only need 1 or 2 of them. In the balance release every unit has it's uses (well lanser not so much) and you cancombine many unit combinations.

In the old release however, why make an axefighter who needs 3 weapons (axe armor and shield) while he will die just as fast to xbow fire? then i rather have 1,5 lanser for each axefighter. the same applies to swordsmen.

as far as bows and xbows go, bows are usefull in the new release. While xbows in masses might be powerfull bows have a high fire rate, and both have ther ups and downs. i once made a silly metaphor that xbows are like a kam shotgun wich givesa powerfull shot but slower to reload and mass bows are licke a kam machinegun, less powerfull but high fire rate

PostPosted: **01 Mar 2013, 13:13**

Wow, only little time passed and already 3 persons try to persuade me

Guys, I am not convinced by the changes, that's all! I don't know if it's because of the games that I had or it's my own playstyle; it does not matter. I prefer the fighting system of the official release, but I will learn to live with the changes if they are applied.

I just wanted to state my opinion and then had to answer because Revo asked some weird questions (imho). I did not intend to restart the whole discussion because, honestly, I don't understand your point while at the same time you don't understand mine.

But as this discussion already started again, I want to ask one question the is not completely independent of the changes:

I had so many games with the people out there, which are basically weak players. I know that because I've won so many games and I know, that I guess I am a weak player compared to you all.
But not in a single game I've heard any complaint about the fighting system. So I wonder: is this whole discussion maybe a phantom that is only present to the players writing here on the forums?

I can only speak for myself: I also saw this phantom before my short hiatus, if you remember I also agreed to the +1shield. But when I came back, it was gone completely. I simply don't see any need for change any more.

PostPosted: **01 Mar 2013, 13:25**

I did understand everything said, I just don't agree and thats based on my experience in both the old release and the balance version. It's fine that your opinion is different, but I'd like some good explanation why you think that 4179 is better than the current balance version?

I had so many games with the people out there, which are basically weak players. I know that because I've won so many games and I know, that I guess I am a weak player compared to you all.
But not in a single game I've heard any complaint about the fighting system. So I wonder: is this whole discussion maybe a phantom that is only present to the players writing here on the forums?

Problems don't exist. People make "problems" because something can be better. Companies don't innovate because people always ask for new stuff or tweaked stuff, they innovate as well to make things better. By the way I saw a lot of people in 4179 asking (enthusiastic) about a new version. The funny thing is that you even notice that some people already changed their tactic in the old release because they know about the changes in the new one. This way people might think there is more variation in the current release. Also people who just started playing this release will probably not notice that the balance is broken in 4179.

PostPosted: **01 Mar 2013, 13:39**

As far as i know people noticed that the units wich requires a shield are hardly being used in the official release, and the idea to make them more useful was the suggested shield patch wich has bene tested in the balance release. You are entitled to have your own opinion offcourse, and you do not have to be convinced by the changes.

But i think you can agree that there is more unit diversity in the balance release in the contrary of the official release, where the best strategy is making xbows + lansers and if you want an extra 1 or 2 knights for flanking. So basically the balance release has achieved the vision of people over the shielded units before the changes were made. So in my opinion is the balance release one step forward towards a KaM with more unit diversity and i really think these changes are good to implement.

PostPosted: **03 Mar 2013, 21:26**

I think this obsession with 'diversity' has to stop at some point. Because nobody ever says what he means with that.
The following is not addressed towards the current unit change, so please don't read it that way. Maybe even split it from this topic.

Take To's shoutcast, it's the best example. Most of you seem to like what is shown in there. You say, different units mean diversity. But that's only half of the story. People adopt, and then it's incredibly boring. Most of the shown towns would not survive a longer game, they'd starve to death. They only have the one purpose to have one fight a 1 hours playtime. And that's so one dimensional that I think the word 'diversity' really does not fit here. There really is little difference in the shown strategies, it's all about the one single big battle after 60min peace time and then the game is over. The contrary of diversity.

Diversity could be interpreted in another way. Namely that you could try to rush for the biggest army after peace time like most people do. Or you try to build a sustainable town that gives you the upper hand at late game (my favorite). You could imagine a sneaker who sobatages your town. Even the 'hated-by-everyone' camping player. And so on.

In the current state, the chance for a one fight-only match is probably above 80%. You could say, kam never had much diversity, ok.

@Krom & Lewin
I beg you, please tell us what your aim is? How far do you plan to change the kam gameplay?

PostPosted: **03 Mar 2013, 22:19**

Each loc need own build style and it depend what map and loc where you on. Some of us can make food after pt if it`s necessary.
There is so many reason why city dying after PT and one of biggest reason that you spam too much serf witch you can`t feed after PT they just stay and eat your food you can`t do anything about it. Even 2 farms can feed your city if you have right amount of serf. When you build city you need a lot of workers but after pt you need less workers. Maybe if somehow you could reduce amount of serf you have after PT it would fix your problems with food.

No army no fight.

PostPosted: **03 Mar 2013, 22:23**

I highly disagree with you, the tactics nowadays keep changing and the towns get more sustainable afterpt while still having a large army. Most people rush leather alog with iron giving more food and a more sustainable town.

this weekend alone i already had 2+ hours games while everyone rushed, and everyone kept making a good army after pt wich was quite diverse in the contrary of the official release.

*Edit*

Dammit bloodtree you ninja poster

this post is referring to siegfried.

PostPosted: **04 Mar 2013, 17:03**

Each loc need own build style and it depend what map and loc where you on. Some of us can make food after pt if it`s necessary.
There is so many reason why city dying after PT and one of biggest reason that you spam too much serf witch you can`t feed after PT they just stay and eat your food you can`t do anything about it. Even 2 farms can feed your city if you have right amount of serf. When you build city you need a lot of workers but after pt you need less workers. Maybe if somehow you could reduce amount of serf you have after PT it would fix your problems with food.

No army no fight.

I believe that Lewin plans on adding an ability to "retire" workers. They'll go back into the school and disappear for no gain (except that you have one less mouth to feed)

PostPosted: **04 Mar 2013, 18:21**

Sounds quite cool. It'd be more KaM suited than killing it. :-P I just can't help imagining killing all these random people in my town...

PostPosted: **04 Mar 2013, 21:10**

Sounds quite cool. It'd be more KaM suited than killing it. :-P I just can't help imagining killing all these random people in my town...

It is, indeed, more suitable for KaM. Killing your own people because they are "inconvenient" is something you do in AoK

PostPosted: **05 Mar 2013, 06:40**

Or maybe the butcher can turn them into a few sausages?

BTW, this is offtopic, but nice avatar Ben. I'm sure hoping more Americans would play KaM, it's awfully quiet around times like these (10 pm PST).

PostPosted: **05 Mar 2013, 07:29**

Hahaha. Awesome quote here, Sjaak. I'll remember that one.

PostPosted: **05 Mar 2013, 16:38**

Or maybe the butcher can turn them into a few sausages?

Yeah we are getting off topic, but have you ever heard of blood sausage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_sausage
This stuff creeps me out!

Oh, and thanks for the compliment

PostPosted: **05 Mar 2013, 20:39**

Or maybe the butcher can turn them into a few sausages?

I'm sure at least Revo would approve!

Knights and Merchants.net Forum

Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297

Re: Balance testing release r4297