Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: Age 1 heroes versus Age 2 heroes

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Aussie
    Posts
    306

    Default Age 1 heroes versus Age 2 heroes

    A lot of talk going around about transferring Age 1 accounts to Age 2 so time to weigh up the differences between Age 1 and Age 2 heroes


    First difference in levels.

    In Age 1 it is unlimited.
    In Age 2 levels are capped. A normal hero cannot go past level 100 and historic heroes cannot go past level 150.

    Age 1 heroes above level 100 will most likely be nerfed back to level 100 to conform to the rules of Age 2. This can mean up to 700 levels being nerfed from some players. Gone are the days of the 1000 attack hero


    Second difference is armor

    In Age 1 it doesn?t exist.
    In Age 2 armor can be equipped on a hero boosting it by up to 150 attribute points.

    An excellent addition to Age 2. You only need 1 set of armor and that armor can be equipped to all your heroes. For example you can have level 10 armor and equip it to a level 100 politician and boost his politics by 150, to a level 100 intelligence guy and boost his intelligence by 150 and a level 100 attacker and boost his attack by 150. The versatility of the armor is brilliant.

    Armor goes up to 10 levels and there are 16 pieces of armor. 15 of them increase attributes and 1 of them increases speed. You can boost the foot speed of your attacks by up to 100% which means you can arrive at a destination twice as fast. Armor works as such To wear level 1 armor you must be level 10 or higher. Level 2 armor ? level 20 or higher etc.

    Armor also has a star level which means you can boost each pieces attributes by up to 7 points more by playing a game of chance with things called delicate and flawless gems.


    Third Difference is the new formula used to calculate troop training, construction and research time.
    Much like hero levels this has been viciously nerfed. So extreme is the nerfing on it that the difference between a 100 hero and 300 hero is only 32% as far as troop building goes. It was 172% in Age 1. The advantages of having a high level hero are so minimal it almost is not worth having one in Age 2.

    An example of this is imagine having no hero in your inn. You go to build an archer for example and it takes 60 seconds. Now you assign a 300 attack hero as a mayor. In Age 1 this reduces the build time to 13 seconds. In Age 2 the build time is reduced to 40 seconds. In Age 1 the build time is almost 5 times quicker. In Age 2 the build time isn?t even twice as fast between having no hero and a 300 attack hero.


    This is what to expect when you move from Age 1 to Age 2 with your hero. Of course another point to mention is the armor is something that you must spend a fair bit acquiring or do a lot of material hunting like medal hunting.


    Overall, the Age 2 heroes are nerfed so badly it reduces the game from have a good hero have an advantage to who has the most cities becomes the most powerful

  2. #2

    Default

    Lol.. play castles of camelot if your going to play a facebook app.. it's more like the original evony..

    Of course I don't like facebook.. and have only logged on to my account there maybe once a week..

    Evony Age I still rules and is the best

    but if your a facebooker.. go with the one I listed it at least has all the bugs worked out

  3. #3

    Default

    So they are finally balancing heroes and capping them. What's the problem?
    But....the eternal ray of sunshine REALLY wanted to see you, so I helped brighten your day by removing the city from around you! ^.^

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Aussie
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    So they are finally balancing heroes and capping them. What's the problem?
    Capping the level was a good think. Doing this meant instant troops could not happen. Messing with the troop building/construction/research formulae was not a good thing. That ensures the game becomes even more tedious.

    So you think someone with a 400 attack hero should not have a significantly quicker troop build time than someone with 100 attack? The 100 attack hero can build 34 archers per hour while the 400 attack hero can build 51 archers per hour. So the difference between an elite hero and a paltry one is just 50%? That is balancing gone wrong. Same scenario in Age 1 sees the 100 attack hero building 48 archers per hour (that?s right, almost as fast as a 400 attack hero in Age 2) while the 400 attack hero builds 219 archers per hour.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    So they are finally balancing heroes and capping them. What's the problem?
    Simply put.. as you grow you take on greater battles.. with greater battles comes greater troop loss... with greater troop loss comes the need to train greater amounts of troops in a faster time.. with the need to train greater amounts of troops in a faster time comes the need for heroes with no cap on them..

    That's the problem

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    once upon a time there was a little girl named debbie who wanted to jump over the rainbow but she...
    Posts
    2,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    So they are finally balancing heroes and capping them. What's the problem?
    If you want to play a "balanced" strategy game in which everyone has equal chance to win and all.....

    Play chess



    Games are all about who's better, who's best, who's smarter, who's quicker, who has more skill.

    Totally removing the goalpost or making it unfeasible to reach totally removes the challenge of gaming.

    Why play if all of you are just gonna be the same in the end-game?
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
    (")_(")signature to help him gain world domination



  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Real McCoy View Post
    Capping the level was a good think. Doing this meant instant troops could not happen. Messing with the troop building/construction/research formulae was not a good thing. That ensures the game becomes even more tedious.

    So you think someone with a 400 attack hero should not have a significantly quicker troop build time than someone with 100 attack? The 100 attack hero can build 34 archers per hour while the 400 attack hero can build 51 archers per hour. So the difference between an elite hero and a paltry one is just 50%? That is balancing gone wrong. Same scenario in Age 1 sees the 100 attack hero building 48 archers per hour (that?s right, almost as fast as a 400 attack hero in Age 2) while the 400 attack hero builds 219 archers per hour.
    From what I've read, warriors are the only instant troop that can be made in Age II, and, simply put, since they are the fodder troop type they should really be the only ones that can be trained instantly. Part of the problem with Age I is in being able to produce armies so massive and quickly that they force players to start farming more and more simply to feed them. That is one of the reasons troop build times was changed: to slow down the accumulation of troops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxius View Post
    spoken like someone who lacks the dedication to keep up
    No, spoken like someone who understands what the word "game balance" means.

    Quote Originally Posted by IamDRAMA View Post
    Simply put.. as you grow you take on greater battles.. with greater battles comes greater troop loss... with greater troop loss comes the need to train greater amounts of troops in a faster time.. with the need to train greater amounts of troops in a faster time comes the need for heroes with no cap on them..

    That's the problem
    If everyone can train troops at the same speed, there is no problem. Only those who wish to have a permanent advantage over everyone else when it comes to training troops would have a problem with capped heroes as they don't want a level playing field at the top, they simply want to have the playing field permanently in their favor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Melri View Post
    If you want to play a "balanced" strategy game in which everyone has equal chance to win and all.....

    Play chess



    Games are all about who's better, who's best, who's smarter, who's quicker, who has more skill.

    Totally removing the goalpost or making it unfeasible to reach totally removes the challenge of gaming.

    Why play if all of you are just gonna be the same in the end-game?
    That is the problem with not having a cap on hero levels.


    And I used to play chess.
    But....the eternal ray of sunshine REALLY wanted to see you, so I helped brighten your day by removing the city from around you! ^.^

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    If everyone can train troops at the same speed, there is no problem. Only those who wish to have a permanent advantage over everyone else when it comes to training troops would have a problem with capped heroes as they don't want a level playing field at the top, they simply want to have the playing field permanently in their favor.
    Can you please tell me what server you are playing on????
    I have played on several different servers and never have I seen a player that had a definate advantage over "everyone else" I mean the term "everyone" implies that there is one guy/gal dominating the entire server.. I must be playing a totally different game then you because the servers I am on have a few folks at the top that everyone sorta fears.. and then a few folks everyone respects... and then a few folks everyone farms..

    By your standards we should just give every country on Earth the same resources to build armies of equal size.. then we can all play hopscotch and blow on dandelions cause we're all equal and it's all good..

    No thanks.. Some people (notice I said PEOPLE) develope "advantages" because they work for it.. is this a strategy game or a social networking game.. I'm confused


  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IamDRAMA View Post
    Can you please tell me what server you are playing on????
    I have played on several different servers and never have I seen a player that had a definate advantage over "everyone else" I mean the term "everyone" implies that there is one guy/gal dominating the entire server.. I must be playing a totally different game then you because the servers I am on have a few folks at the top that everyone sorta fears.. and then a few folks everyone respects... and then a few folks everyone farms..

    By your standards we should just give every country on Earth the same resources to build armies of equal size.. then we can all play hopscotch and blow on dandelions cause we're all equal and it's all good..

    No thanks.. Some people (notice I said PEOPLE) develope "advantages" because they work for it.. is this a strategy game or a social networking game.. I'm confused

    Did I say anything about everyone having the same amount of resources?


    No


    Did I say anything about everyone having the same size army?


    No


    Did I say anything about hero levels?


    Yes
    But....the eternal ray of sunshine REALLY wanted to see you, so I helped brighten your day by removing the city from around you! ^.^

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    From what I've read, warriors are the only instant troop that can be made in Age II, and, simply put, since they are the fodder troop type they should really be the only ones that can be trained instantly. Part of the problem with Age I is in being able to produce armies so massive and quickly that they force players to start farming more and more simply to feed them. That is one of the reasons troop build times was changed: to slow down the accumulation of troops.



    No, spoken like someone who understands what the word "game balance" means.



    If everyone can train troops at the same speed, there is no problem. Only those who wish to have a permanent advantage over everyone else when it comes to training troops would have a problem with capped heroes as they don't want a level playing field at the top, they simply want to have the playing field permanently in their favor.




    That is the problem with not having a cap on hero levels.


    And I used to play chess.
    There will always be two types of players. The guy above, and the person he's quoting.

    No matter how high your heroes attack is, population still holds you back. If your hero is high enough, it can build troops as fast as the population can grow back. Working towards that, is progression. Games like this, are about progression. Taking that away, makes the game a lot more shallow.

    Simply put, they've taken a huge facet of the open ended gameplay Evony provides, and flushed it down the toilet, instead making people spend large amounts of cents for lesser bonuses. If you see this as anything less then a cash grab, you simply don't understand how Evony works. Like when they nerfed drop rates on medals, some daft people actually said the change was needed. I mean, I sort of agree, the drop rate could have been nerfed by 15%, 20%, not 700% like it was. That's not a lie, or exageration. On server 74 I attacked over 400 valleys and found one single medal. I started playing on my old server, 13, turned into N3, and found one medal every four or five valleys. Work that out. Let's say one medal to every five valleys, compared to one medal for every couple hundred.......

    Anyways. What I'm trying to say is that Evony is going to break. They charge way too much for in game currency, and are making all their new content rely on this.

    Another, amazing point, imo. The guy I'm quoting talks about fairness. When you get a large player with a 1000 att hero on your back, and you are a casual player with a 300 hero maybe, they have a huge advantage right? Of course. So let's say with Age2, the guy with the 1000 att hero, would be on par with the other guy. Now, let's say the guy with the 300att hero is rich and spends lots of ingame money. All of a sudden, the advantage shifted from the player with dedication, to the player with money in his pocket.

    Personally I'll never play a game where the advantage is in your pocket, rather then your mind.

    That's not chess. That's not strategy.

    Good day.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •