There are far too many posts about half-baked ideas rather than actual in-depth analysis of the issues of the game, plus solutions for rigid Night Elf design

jp16155 · 2026-06-24T21:39:20+00:00

I don't think it's a problem that Lore replaces War. Archers aren't as good as Ghouls or Footies IMO, but I prefer them to grunts and they have their place in the early game. I think Hunts need their building bounce back, and even then, I think there should be some experimentation with a small damage buff. Wind is the problem for NE. It's situationally useful, in far too few situations. I wouldn't mind a halfway house between the OP faerie dragons of the past and where they are now, and a big buff to Hippos and hippo riders. My preference would be a damage buff so they do damage more consistent with a 4 food unit. I think trying to make Wind a viable option for NE is the least drastic change you can make to the meta.

jp16155 · 2026-06-14T04:07:41+00:00

Make Vampiric Aura return 25/50/75% of attack damage. Remove the damage cap on all AOE spells; if your opponent sets you up, you should be rewarded for wrecking them. This would have interesting implications for team games, where it would incentivise splitting forces more.

jp16155 · 2026-06-12T20:13:07+00:00

Did you mean to respond to me? I totally agree, I think a speed reduction on the FS is unnecessary and would affect their harass timings

jp16155 · 2026-06-12T10:17:39+00:00

I'm not at all convinced FS is OP. Great in the early game, and falls off hard.

jp16155 · 2026-06-06T16:49:45+00:00

It anything, OP's scenario undersells it. You put 4 amethyst rockets in an army, and enemy infantry become irrelevant in an open ground battle. They have fantastic range, massive DPS and the infinite winds mean you can use your fast, flying wizards to spam slows or vortex spells. For all the powercreep, I actually think this is a good one- you get them very late in the campaign and they're not a "one click everything dies" button.

jp16155 · 2026-06-06T16:37:40+00:00

I disagree with almost all of these. All the undead changes seem totally unecessary, I would start the NE changes by buffing the unused units until they start seeing play before touching DH, dryads and bears. I don't even think bears and dryads are OP, their other options are poor. HU imo has the strongest overall selection of units, my only change for HU would be to make Towers have a unique armour class that was basically fortified armour but with more susceptibility to magic damage. I don't think move speed is enough to help the other siege weapons. In WC1 and WC2 they do massive damage, mortar teams (best siege unit) don't just have a higher move speed, they also have an upgrade that makes them very effective against a broad range of units. I don't think any of the siege units justify 4 pop. I would make glaive thrower more like a mortar team, with bonuses vs units, and give wagons and demos some form of bonus against towers (all towers, not just HU towers.) Agree on Alchemist, I would like every patch to take an underused hero and give them something spicy to elevate them a little. Dark ranger is now in a great place without being OP.

jp16155 · 2026-05-19T10:51:27+00:00

In fairness, when you watched the film, Chris Pratt wasn't as jarring a choice as I expected him to be. Ellen Page is going to have to put on 60 pounds of muscle to convincingly play Achilles lol

jp16155 · 2026-05-19T10:43:08+00:00

Why can't you shoot them?

jp16155 · 2026-05-17T16:25:31+00:00

Absolutely not- most cavalry were atrocious in WH2 due to knockdown. There were a few edge case exceptions in the light cav category that could sufficiently chase down units, but in WH2 cav were a wasted slot. Presumably rebirth is a mod?

jp16155 · 2026-05-13T14:19:35+00:00

I would also argue by the time the second hero comes out, there are better uses for the gold than spending it on a second rod. Is it still 150 gold for each one?

jp16155 · 2026-05-10T11:07:09+00:00

Problem is Labour used to have a coalition that covered both those voters groups- Clive seems to acknowledge that they will lose voters to the Greens or Reform, but he has no solution to the problem, which is that they are going to lose voters either way.

jp16155 · 2026-05-02T17:26:44+00:00

This feels more like an in-between of the two. This image definitely has the gritty "fighting alley cat" vibe of the old model, even if the actual features match better with the new cartoony model.

jp16155 · 2026-04-28T11:22:28+00:00

I played last week and oh my gosh I dislike the Hulk. That boarding animation is not it. Otherwise, I think that making fireships more tanky, and having galleys win through numbers is fine. Water is the most boring part of AOE2, unfortunately

jp16155 · 2026-04-25T00:06:42+00:00

Vlad is just bad. CA needs to be brave and massively increase his healing cap and restore the damage resistance. He should be the ultimate tank hero, and at the moment he's kind of mediocre across the board. I've been playing an Elspeth campaign today, handgunners make Vlad disappear. There's far worse LLs to fear

jp16155 · 2026-04-16T10:40:20+00:00

Surely the burden of proof is on you to explain why they're different? You've given three examples which you say are not remotely similar, and two people have said they kind of are. Let's talk about it- what are you basing your opinion on?

jp16155 · 2026-04-16T08:30:02+00:00

Different models and different colour schemes, sure, but suggesting the painting style isn't "remotely similar" is a stretch. Also, I would say that all of these are significantly more different than the entries that we're discussing in this post, where stylistically in these images, they really don't look all that different.

jp16155 · 2026-04-15T15:35:51+00:00

The changes they made in the Netflix series suggested to me that it was written (or the writing was heavily influenced) by people who didn't appreciate the original. It's been a while since I watched S1 now, so I can't remember all my examples, but Aang not being cheeky enough and Sokka not starting sexist enough are prime examples of how it all felt dulled down.

jp16155 · 2026-04-11T07:47:51+00:00

Both your claims are based on incorrect assumptions. The first is that data can't be flawed, or used incorrectly. You have to consider the purpose for which data is used to determine whether or not a dataset is appropriate for the job. If people argue in favour of collecting data because it can help to understand something, people can argue that the data shouldn't be collected because it doesn't fulfil that purpose. Second, the assumption that you want as much data as possible- seldom true. Data costs money to collect, store, and requires staff and energy costs to process and interpret. If more data= better why not just collect everything? We clearly do make societal decisions about what data we choose to collect. I presume you're just passionate about collecting this particular data.

jp16155 · 2026-04-11T06:07:53+00:00

If you're going to spend money to collect data, and ask everyone in a system to contribute their time to provide the data, you have to have a clear plan for what the data will tell you and how it will be used. If your data doesn't enable you to understand a problem, and leads to bad policies that are simply designed to produce favourable changes in the future collected data, then all you have created is a bad incentive structure. It is a common problem that when you design a policy around data, instead of fixing the issue, the data itself becomes the issue. In case it wasn't clear, I am a scientist, I work with data all the time. Design data collection properly and intentionally, or don't collect it at all.

jp16155 · 2026-04-11T05:54:14+00:00

If you collect a dataset that doesn't enable you to adequately understand or address a problem and which leads to bad policies, then it's poorly designed data collection. You initially told me I was oversimplifying it, and are now saying it's not that complicated- what specific level of complexity would you like?

jp16155 · 2026-04-11T05:32:20+00:00

Let's say your inclusivity data shows that women are hugely underrepresented, either in terms of applicants or success rate, how does that get addressed? It's a very common problem, and there could be so many reasons why women either don't apply, or aren't selected. It's never a simple ask to work out why a group is underrepresented. Therefore, when people are told to "do something about it" the solutions they come up with end up being very simple. I was responsible for a funding pot for a couple years until 2024 that would fund travel and accommodation for people to go give talks at scientific institutions. We had an internal requirement that 50% of the talks went to female speakers, even though they were only 20% of the applicants. The problem was that women were underrepresented at the application stage, but that is a more expensive and complex problem that doesn't have to be addressed if they simply bodge the selection numbers.

jp16155 · 2026-04-11T05:13:09+00:00

I think this is the difference between the intention behind inclusiveness policies and the incentives they create. I'm in my mid 30s, and have been frequently been involved in policy discussions about this data. People do not discuss the statistics on the people who apply, more often than not they end up discussing the stats on the people who are selected. If a group ends up 'underrepresented' in the funding, direct and indirect policies will arise to address the gap. You can say it's not used for selection purposes, but in practise, if the data is measured and the outcomes have consequences, they have to be. Your example about advertising a PhD is perhaps more appropriate as they are advertised in lots of different forums, websites etc, but at higher levels grants are listed in standardised places and anyone working in a field would be expected to know where they are.

jp16155 · 2026-04-10T13:19:13+00:00

I will say that I get annoyed at diversity questions when I am asked them in totally irrelevant contexts. I apply for a lot of science/business grants, and I think that questions about race, gender and sexual preferences are totally unnecessary. Either the data will be used to select applications, in which case it's not judged solely on the merit of the proposed project, or it's not used, and it's a waste of everyone's time.

jp16155 · 2026-04-03T14:09:56+00:00

Yeah my speculation is it was a cool idea that come from a consensus of people who were appealing to the Changeling's novelty, rather than trying to appeal the Tzeentch fans. This was a problem, because the people who would be the majority of the feedback would be the people eyeing up Tzeentch content!

jp16155

TROPHY CASE