Why shouldn't AO critical hit also apply to higher age units?

[Emberguard]

What you overlook is the fact that accommodating the minority (those who push forward on the continent map) in this case would not detract from the enjoyment of the majority (those who don't need the boost for fighting higher ages).

Except this would effect everyone with a Arctic Orangery, not just the minority for a specific playstyle. It would change game balance for the entire game, not just the Continent Map, and not just if you're going above your age.

Players already choose to use Units from previous age(s) if the unique unit skills or attributes are sufficient to outclass current age units. If you change Arctic Orangery to work when up against units of a higher age, then you're making previous age units more inline with current age. That defeats the whole point of having current age anything.

Arctic Orangery allows me to double my attrition in Guild Battlegrounds. So it would actually be a pretty big deal if it started working on lower aged units, as that'd change whether I would need to bother with current age units

Hover Tank is already OP. Main thing that makes it outclassed later on is because you don't have Arctic Orangery, and the Space Age units have Keen Eye which is basically a inbuilt Arctic Orangery.

The main player feedback whenever a new age is released is to make sure the new units are not overpowered by previous age units so there's actually something new in the game. If you change Arctic Orangery to work with previous age(s), you might as well throw out all feedback in regards to units in subsequent ages. Good luck balancing that if Arctic Orangery starts working when you have lower aged units, I've already seen players in feedback threads ask for Keen Eye to be swapped out for something else.

Personally I don't want Arctic Orangery to work on previous age units, because that would take away some of the challenge of the game. And it's the challenge of the game that makes it fun

 

[Graviton]

Again, I have yet to see one good reason why AO critical hit should not apply to higher age units. Any argument to that end would also apply to the boost as it currently exists.

You saw one good reason in the post to which this is replying, and that same reason from at least two others since: game balance. If you don't think overall game balance is a good reason I'm not sure how you define the term.

 

[Loren1979]

You saw one good reason in the post to which this is replying, and that same reason from at least two others since: game balance. If you don't think overall game balance is a good reason I'm not sure how you define the term.

Game balance is important, but you would need to explain how this would negatively affect game balance for me to acknowledge this as a good reason.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Because it will create a whole new class of fighting units that many do not want.

 

[Graviton]

Game balance is important, but you would need to explain how this would negatively affect game balance for me to acknowledge this as a good reason.

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/why-shouldnt-ao-critical-hit-also-apply-to-higher-age-units.44236/page-2#post-382066

 

[Loren1979]

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/why-shouldnt-ao-critical-hit-also-apply-to-higher-age-units.44236/page-2#post-382066

Ok, acknowledged. The hover illustration is a good example of how it could affect game balance. Which brings up the question why Inno made hovers so strong. And if there is a good answer to that question then we might need to consider whether other imbalances might also have legitimacy.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

What you overlook is the fact that accommodating the minority (those who push forward on the continent map) in this case would not detract from the enjoyment of the majority (those who don't need the boost for fighting higher ages). Again, I have yet to see one good reason why AO critical hit should not apply to higher age units. Any argument to that end would also apply to the boost as it currently exists.

You want the change, the burden of coming up with a good reason for it is on you, not on those who think it's fine the way it is. And the only reason you've given so far is the equivalent of "because it will make my game style easier to play." Why should you be given an advantage that you don't have now? Accommodate? No, the word you're looking for is "enable".

 

[Loren1979]

You want the change, the burden of coming up with a good reason for it is on you, not on those who think it's fine the way it is. And the only reason you've given so far is the equivalent of "because it will make my game style easier to play." Why should you be given an advantage that you don't have now? Accommodate? No, the word you're looking doe

You want the change, the burden of coming up with a good reason for it is on you, not on those who think it's fine the way it is. And the only reason you've given so far is the equivalent of "because it will make my game style easier to play." Why should you be given an advantage that you don't have now? Accommodate? No, the word you're looking for is "enable".

First of all, I never asked for change. This was meant to be a discussion about the theory behind it. I couldn't think of a good reason why Inno would not have built the higher age functionality into the boost from its inception. You will notice above that I acknowledge the legitimacy of overall balance based on the example of hovers. Apart from that the burden of proof for including it from the beginning has already been met.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

First of all, I never asked for change. This was meant to be a discussion about the theory behind it. I couldn't think of a good reason why Inno would not have built the higher age functionality into the boost from its inception. You will notice above that I acknowledge the legitimacy of overall balance based on the example of hovers. Apart from that the burden of proof for including it from the beginning has already been met.

The good reason why Inno would not have built the higher age functionality into the boost is simple. It's not how they wanted it to work. That was a choice that they made, presumably for game balance. As far as you claiming that the burden of proof for why it should have been included from the beginning has not been met except in your own mind. The fact that you don't accept game balance or Inno's decision on how the boost would work as good reasons for it being the way it is does not constitute meeting a burden of proof. Nor does the simple statement that you think it should work as you wish it to. Give a good game reason (other than "it would make it easier" or "I worked so hard on it, despite the fact that I knew from the start it wouldn't work against higher age units") why it should be changed.

 

[Loren1979]

The good reason why Inno would not have built the higher age functionality into the boost is simple. It's not how they wanted it to work. That was a choice that they made, presumably for game balance. As far as you claiming that the burden of proof for why it should have been included from the beginning has not been met except in your own mind. The fact that you don't accept game balance or Inno's decision on how the boost would work as good reasons for it being the way it is does not constitute meeting a burden of proof. Nor does the simple statement that you think it should work as you wish it to. Give a good game reason (other than "it would make it easier" or "I worked so hard on it, despite the fact that I knew from the start it wouldn't work against higher age units") why it should be changed.

Is it just me or are you repeating yourself? I already acknowledged that game balance is a valid argument against having critical hit apply to higher age units. Repeatedly saying that a feature is good because Inno decided it should be that way is overly simplistic and irrelevant to this discussion. The same argument could be made for any and all features, which would make this section of the forum unnecessary and quite boring, especially if we have members who continually reiterate it. The whole game is about enjoyment and participation. If Inno makes a decision that reduces the potential enjoyment and participation then the decision could be considered to be counterproductive. That is the whole point of a feedback and discussion forum. I have already pointed out that a reduction in options and functionality usually results in a less enjoyable game. This is why you and I are no longer playing Mario Brothers. Apart from the consideration of overall game balance from age to age an increase in strategic functionality and game options is a reasonable argument for the feature.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Another great reason is that I don’t want it.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Is it just me or are you repeating yourself? I already acknowledged that game balance is a valid argument against having critical hit apply to higher age units. Repeatedly saying that a feature is good because Inno decided it should be that way is overly simplistic and irrelevant to this discussion. The same argument could be made for any and all features, which would make this section of the forum unnecessary and quite boring, especially if we have members who continually reiterate it. The whole game is about enjoyment and participation. If Inno makes a decision that reduces the potential enjoyment and participation then the decision could be considered to be counterproductive. That is the whole point of a feedback and discussion forum. I have already pointed out that a reduction in options and functionality usually results in a less enjoyable game. This is why you and I are no longer playing Mario Brothers. Apart from the consideration of overall game balance from age to age an increase in strategic functionality and game options is a reasonable argument for the feature.

To summarize: Game balance is a valid argument for not extending critical hit functionality to units other than same age BUT apart from that valid argument there is no other reason for not doing it.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

There are plenty of good reasons why. It would provide more incentive to use and enjoy aspects of the game (levelling GBs) that already exist. As soon as I realized that AO doesn't help with higher age troops I stopped levelling it. It is basically just an oversized CC for me now. The critical hit is really only going to help with GBG, and not everyone wants to spend a lot of time there. People like options. More options and strategic availability generally results in greater player participation and enjoyment, which is in everyone's best interest here. People who don't like options could always go back to playing Mario Brothers or Zelda.

Sound like buyer's remorse. Did you not do your research? Did you think you were building something you weren't?

You've been clear about how such a change would benefit you, what you've not shown is how this change would be good for the game. Particularly game balance. You also can't use the lame argument of "if you don't like it, don't use it."

So tell us Mr. LMA dude, what do you know that players with years of experience playing in the 20 ages beyond yours don't?

Burden of proof is on you. How would this change benefit the game and game balance?

The whole game is about enjoyment and participation. If Inno makes a decision that reduces the potential enjoyment and participation then the decision could be considered to be counterproductive. That is the whole point of a feedback and discussion forum. I have already pointed out that a reduction in options and functionality usually results in a less enjoyable game. This is why you and I are no longer playing Mario Brothers. Apart from the consideration of overall game balance from age to age an increase in strategic functionality and game options is a reasonable argument for the feature.

You keep making it sound as if you lost something here. Because YOU want something to be different, Inno is limiting choices you never had? A bit of a confused argument, don't you think?

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

He is posting to make a political statement , using your real picture in the forum is against the TOS btw Mr Entitlement

 

[Loren1979]

Sound like buyer's remorse. Did you not do your research? Did you think you were building something you weren't?

You've been clear about how such a change would benefit you, what you've not shown is how this change would be good for the game. Particularly game balance. You also can't use the lame argument of "if you don't like it, don't use it."

So tell us Mr. LMA dude, what do you know that players with years of experience playing in the 20 ages beyond yours don't?

Burden of proof is on you. How would this change benefit the game and game balance?

You keep making it sound as if you lost something here. Because YOU want something to be different, Inno is limiting choices you never had? A bit of a confused argument, don't you think?

I am quite content to work with what I have, it would be perhaps just a little more enjoyable to see that critical hit finish off an OF opponent every now and then, especially in closely matched manual battle, but I can plug away without it. It just didn't make sense to me that the bonus wouldn't apply to stronger units from higher ages. You might be 20 ages beyond mine, and I would recognize that this would result in you having insights into the game that I don't. The hover discussion above would be a good example of this. Along the same lines if you have never pushed into OF continent map from LMA then you might not want to disrespect the insights of someone who has. Experience should never be an excuse for disrespecting the ideas of others regardless of how great the disparity between their experience and your own. Neither should it be an excuse for well-known-members to sideline ideas and discussions with simplistic answers like "Inno designed it this way, that should be good enough reason for you," etc. It is in everyone's best interest, including Inno for the game to be enjoyable and stimulating for as wide a range of strategies as reasonably possible. Let's not get stuck in a nursing home mentality where we are so close-minded and inflexible that we become resistant to all change. I might just point out that after all the condescending well-known-member-splaining and ridicule on the infeasibility of an aid-all button, Inno actually came to a different conclusion. Even though that was not a discussion that was important to me, and didn't get too involved in, it is always refreshing to see some egos take a bit of a hit.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Along the same lines if you have never pushed into OF continent map from LMA then you might not want to disrespect the insights of someone who has.

Units get harder with each age. It would be nice if AO had the ability to wipe one out once in a while. That's obvious. What insight am I missing?

Neither should it be an excuse for well-known-members to sideline ideas and discussions with simplistic answers like "Inno designed it this way, that should be good enough reason for you,"

You may think it simplistic, but it's the only truthful answer there is. Anything beyond that is speculation. Since we're doing that anyway, maybe the reason it doesn't apply to upper age units is that it would make it too easy to push the map way beyond your age.

It is in everyone's best interest, including Inno for the game to be enjoyable and stimulating for as wide a range of strategies as reasonably possible.

You keep on with this vague claptrap. How does catering to your strategy make the game better for everyone?

Let's not get stuck in a nursing home mentality where we are so close-minded and inflexible that we become resistant to all change.

Sure. Because asking you to prove your case means ^this. We're supposed to take you seriously why?

I might just point out that after all the condescending well-known-member-splaining and ridicule on the infeasibility of an aid-all button, Inno actually came to a different conclusion.

You might, but it would be a complete distortion of reality. The issue was not that it was being proposed, it was that it was being proposed for the hundredth time. The objection was not that people didn't want Aid All, but that Inno knew we wanted it, it had fallen on deaf ears inside Inno for years and we were tired of seeing the same tired proposal rehashing the same reasons.

But sure. Lets go with your theory. It's that 101st proposal that finally pushed Inno over the edge. I'll cling to the belief Inno did it for their own reasons based on their own data. You know, something like adding a long desired feature as a way to get eyeballs on adds they sell for revenue.

 

[Dr Green Thumb]

"It is in everyone's best interest, including Inno for the game to be enjoyable and stimulating for as wide a range of strategies as reasonably possible."

To me, it sounds like the only way he finds it enjoyable and stimulating is by having the whole game on easy mode, not having to make an effort what so ever.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Suggestions of modifying GBs or creating new ones is on the DNS list anyway. I now see why , this dude is a robot I think.

 

[Loren1979]

You keep on with this vague claptrap. How does catering to your strategy make the game better for everyone?

Ok, so let's flip this one back on you. Assuming it makes the game more enjoyable for the person with my approach to the game. How would it make it less enjoyable for you (or anyone else)? Without a good answer to this we would just need to conclude that the net sum enjoyment is greater with than without.

 

[Loren1979]

Suggestions of modifying GBs or creating new ones is on the DNS list anyway. I now see why , this dude is a robot I think.

This is not intended to be a suggestion thread, rather, an evaluation and discussion thread. Do you have something pleasant that you would like to contribute?