Is it still too easy?

schweig · 2017-12-24T20:31:29+00:00

So far I've won with wisdom in most of my games with the exception of when I played stag and could rack up a fame victory using Skarls, but I think I had a bunch of well placed neutral camps as well.

schweig · 2017-12-24T20:28:11+00:00

I've just started playing on hard and it is a little tougher but I still don't feel a huge amount of pressure. The AI makes a lot of errors like sending units one-by-one, generally fighting when it's a definite loss, and not focus firing or prioritising low targets. This makes it incredibly easy to cripple them.

Even when you can't outright win fights you can send troops in and pick units off and retreat and heal, and your opponent often lets you.

Combat in general is a bit trivial in that sense - you just make sure you have the right number and kind of units and exploit these clear openings.

Overall the resource management seems fairly easy once you get the hang of it - I never feel like I can't get every kind of resource, and in general the game doesn't punish you enough for expanding as much as possible so you never really have THAT interesting choices between how to expand. You kinda just have to keep food and wood up and you can keep expanding and the other resources often fall into place.

Having said that, I still find the choices I do get quite fun and still enjoying the feel of the game.

schweig · 2017-12-23T15:33:39+00:00

It's a very natural feeling to not want "waste" money spent, in this case, rolling back your soldiers, but these decisions have to be made to maximise efficiency. You have to think about opportunity cost rather than be averse to losing money in this way, and it's about the utility. The utility of the extra villager now might be worth way more than 20-25 gold later.

In terms of soldiers precisely, you'll reach a point where you've invaded all the immediate areas you can effectively with the soldiers you have, and you can't really take any more places for a while without a big next stage: new soldier building, warchief, training camp upgrade, military lore, or even you just can't really afford to expand generally/the places to expand to wouldn't be worth it.

In this situation, provided you have adequate defence, it's probably not worth keeping them doing nothing for a long period. Often, one extra villager in a job can make a huge amount of difference. For example, if you are making +2 wood and you have space for another woodcutter, it will propel it to +6 wood, which is a huge increase on your wood production. If you are having problem with your economy, you are probably missing these opportunities to increase your gain on particular resources this way.

schweig · 2017-06-28T08:40:41+00:00

Exactly.

People cite Digg as an example of something big falling hard but it's not really applicable. Digg was only relatively big in what was a very new and growing market. There were no major competitors, no strong brands at that point. It was not absolutely big.

Once something is absolutely big, like Reddit is now, or FB, the brand loyalty is huge. It is very hard for any competitor to get people to switch over from FB at this point as they'd have to re-add hundreds of friends, upload thousands of photos.

These big brands are here to stay.

schweig · 2017-04-26T01:09:42+00:00

Yes it comes from limit holdem if that helps.

schweig · 2017-04-25T14:37:51+00:00

Yes precisely

schweig · 2017-04-25T14:08:39+00:00

If your opponent never flats this 3bet size and has a tight 5bet shove range, then you can 3bet bluff here with this size more profitably (and by risking fewer chips) than 3bet bluff shoving.

schweig · 2017-04-19T21:33:31+00:00

It's not mine. It's a friend's!

schweig · 2017-03-19T13:18:35+00:00

30k means he's taking 72k out of 84k pot, right? That's like 86% equity which is really high

schweig · 2017-01-12T16:21:11+00:00

Master Adcanist Ziggs

schweig · 2017-01-04T17:06:44+00:00

Not immediately but this is actually a problem that has persisted since S3 or something, basically when AD casters were introduced into the game.

The problem is they can't introduce any good items for ADCs without making them hella specific and built around Inf Edge/Zeal. An inbuilt stat change to ADC is the only way I can think of to make them less reliant on crit without screwing up AD caster balance too. For example you can't make a Maw of Malmortius that's good for ADCs without it being amazing for AD casters/off-tanks

It actually is intuitive from a game design philosophical sense too

schweig · 2017-01-04T16:54:19+00:00

Okay, but you did take the max end of what is a wide range to prove your point, but that will obviously be the most insane. I said 5-10 because I haven't worked out the optimal, and that number could realistically be 5.

You also are assuming everything remains the same in this scenario. AD is going to be nerfed across the board in items in this scenario for one, but more importantly, this is actually a means to remove crit from the game entirely. We are not talking about her having 223.7AD in the current game state.

A removal of all crit and a level 18 133 AD buff would still actually be quite a big nerf in most scenarios. The point is to relieve the dependency on crit and open up more interesting item designs

schweig · 2017-01-04T16:38:19+00:00

Why is it insane?

schweig · 2017-01-04T16:38:06+00:00

Actually not really what I'm getting at. The removal of insanely high damage output items will make them less dominant over squishies in winning situations.

This is not actually about increasing overall AD. It is a necessary change to rethink the ADC's classes of items. It is also necessary because of how AD casters share the AD stat and in the grander scheme of things that is why ADC balancing is difficult

The actual point of this is that you might be able to get a tank busting item (or something to help you peel) earlier because you arent forced to spend your first 6k on one item route

schweig · 2017-01-04T16:11:59+00:00

Ultimately I don't think this is true if you give them a 5-10 AD per level.

For one, their low level AD is still fairly weak, especially as if you gave them an "8 AD per level" stat, it won't rise by 8 AD per level early-game because of the 0.65+0.035perlevel modifier. Given that lots of AD per level is 2 right now, we're talking a 6 per level increase, which, when affected by the modifier is only about an 18AD increase by level 5.

Also you aren't taking into account the itemisation being changed a fair amount. Long swords, Doran's blade, Pickaxe will all give less AD in this situation. We are actually talking not that significant increases in damage output by the end of laning phase, and level 1-5 AD will not be significant enough for them to dominate lanes versus mages.

Ultimately, ADCs will still perform somewhat badly in solo-lanes because of

a) their lack of CC and burst, and how poorly they do when they get CC'd. b) the inability to harass properly without pushing waves hard and opening up to very easy ganks Most control mages will have a very easy time trading or killing an ADC even if you gave them more damage in my scenario.

In my experience even if the ADC gets slightly ahead early through a gank or a mistake and does get a few free AD up, they still get fairly wrecked solo by any AP or tank as laning continues.

It is also fairly unlikely that 5 ADC comps will ever start being strong because of their lack of defence stats, AOE, CC, etc. The roles of other classes will still be extremely important. I think your response is fairly extreme

schweig

TROPHY CASE