So they gave all the percentage resource cost changes per unit, but only said that they decreased manpower relative to other resources. Any idea by how much? I don't have any archived games to go back and compare.
Also, they said they wanted to encourage a "bigger focus on preserving and upgrading already existing units, rewarding long term strategic planning." This doesn't really change the factors in decided whether to build early and upgrade vs. upgrade then build since upgrade costs will remain at 50% of whatever lvl you are upgrading to, right? It just makes it relatively cheaper to upgrade the units you start the game with, right? Those initial units typically don't make up more than maybe 10% of my army by day 10 so I don't see how it will have very much change on overall early game strat, other than making industry (and all buildings early)relatively cheaper and more attractive to invest in.
How about a decrease in high lvl research times and a small decrease in upgrade cost % at later lvls? Could even increase the cost for higher lvl research and adjust the upgrade % cost per lvl much the same way as they did with unit production costs...Thoughts?
In AvAs, Tournaments, or if a decent group ( alliance ) is on a map, you dont see unit levels above 3 before the game has been decided. There might be some maps, where they have other type of starting units, I personally think its a general nerf, and to have people use more money on boosters and gold in the beginning. I dont know anyone that asked for this balance.
I'm pretty sure you nailed it there.Erecon wrote:
In AvAs, Tournaments, or if a decent group ( alliance ) is on a map, you dont see unit levels above 3 before the game has been decided. There might be some maps, where they have other type of starting units, I personally think its a general nerf, and to have people use more money on boosters and gold in the beginning. I dont know anyone that asked for this balance.
Current Bytro-conspiracy thinking in the community is that it is about reducing server loads. Less units = less performance needs = less stress on servers. I don't know if that is true, a much more logical step would be to reduce the amount of maps, and stop encouraging players (especially new ones) to jump into more and more maps which will only see them fall inactive.
Agree. Set a reasonable limit for the number of simultaneous maps you can be participating. Will help with so many going inactive all the time.
Can't they just get more server space? Or is it too expensive?K.Rokossovski wrote:
Current Bytro-conspiracy thinking in the community is that it is about reducing server loads. Less units = less performance needs = less stress on servers. I don't know if that is true, a much more logical step would be to reduce the amount of maps, and stop encouraging players (especially new ones) to jump into more and more maps which will only see them fall inactive.
Please log in to post a reply.
