Empires 2.23 Released

I have played right now on normal Nachos server and if your team haven't lost all refineries, you have most of the time enough money for a tank.
And I like the increased costs for the barracks. Now you have to watch carefully at startup what to build. This adds more strategy.

And to solve the problem, that tanks are wasted there are some suggestions how to improve the restriction of the VF.

 

No, it promotes costly ultimatums. Usually theres 2 or 3 areas in the beginning of the game that teams rush to get. If you're lucky, you have enough resources for 1 barracks, which most coms don't even place to save money for refineries. Because of poverty and stingyness, maximum of 1 barracks can be placed in the beginning of the game. The usual scenarios are

~ Barracks are placed at 2 different locations. Because each team has a huge advantage of respawns when they have the barrack, they will win the area. Coms have power to hugely influence which areas they want.

~ Barracks are placed in same area. Rarely do coms place barracks in the same area because they don't want to risk losing 400 resources. The area where the barracks are dropped plays out like a 2.22 fight without a second chance if barracks is lost. The areas where the barracks are not dropped usually is a deathtrap until one com decides to put a barracks there 7 minutes after the game as started. Most of the times, players kill each other, spawn run back there and start killing each other again. If there are active respawners, the fight is usually a standstill until the barracks comes. Either way, it just drains tickets.

Sometimes I have seen weirder strategies.

~ Some times, after establishing the first forward barracks, the com recycles the main base barracks to get resources for another forward barracks. If that fails, the enemy can just push all the way towards their main and win the game. Wheres the fun in that D:
~ No barracks are built and the com goes straight for vehicles. Works surprisingly will because of the plain armor buff.

Even though barracks are 400 now, there will still be barrack spam. Later in the game, 400 resources will be nothing. The barracks cost increase only restricts the beginning of the game

 

i believe that was the intent. before the release everyone was bitching about how easy it was to rush and that there was no reason not to do it, now everyone is bitching about having to choose between staking claims on res nodes or going offensive.

the dev team thought of a way to curb rushing and is currently testing it out on the servers.

 

But why there must allways be barracks at 2 different locations? Isn't it more strategic, if commander has to decide, which side to rush first? Then enemy commander must make the same decision.
So you won't have the same barracks vs. barracks fight at every map startup.

And this is good so. If your team loses the barracks, then the other team is playing better and deserves an advantage. If you have to secure the area until there is enough ressources for a barrack, then build turrets and some engineers should have revive.

This is a nice but risky strategy. If it works, the team receives an advantage. If not the other team. In my opinion this is exactly the way how a match should be.

The vehicles are a different problem. Compared to infantry they are overpowered right now.

Later in the game barracks aren't that important, because you have tanks. Then you have to save the resources for them.


In general I would like to see in the next release higher costs for everything or something equals, which has the same result.
Less armor or more weapon power has the same effect.

You can summarize this easily:
Higher costs --> more strategy

 

Everything is fine other than the power of vehicles. Infantry and turrets just can't compete. Honestly everything mechanic wise in terms of the gameplay (discluding bugs) is excellent ASIDE from vehicles. I haven't seen anyone go regen or bio diesle. There really isn't any point in getting anything other than adv coolant or 3 phase, nothing really competes. Fission is fast, but you can't shell an enemy vehicle nearly as fast as they can shell you because you're going to over heat in three shots (not true, exaggerating.)

So, fix the armor values, fix the engines. That's my only complaint. Make turrets more useful against that armor too, because a level 3 ML really can't do anything to a vehicle unless you suck at driving.

 

i go regen on BE all the time, regen is the new reactive with the bug fixed...

95 hp / plate = regen
100 hp/ plate = reactive

nuff said?

but i must concur on the turrets and sticky nades, the devs are aware of these issues and i believe are already addressing it or planning to.

sadly the armor buff needed to happen, the tanks did not last long enough, which creates tank spam and easy losses due to insufficient funds. Games were premature and they are anything but now.

 

"But why there must allways be barracks at 2 different locations? Isn't it more strategic, if commander has to decide, which side to rush first? Then enemy commander must make the same decision.
So you won't have the same barracks vs. barracks fight at every map startup."

wait what? I was listing the most common scenerios, when the barracks are put together in the one under the first scenerio.


"And this is good so. If your team loses the barracks, then the other team is playing better and deserves an advantage. If you have to secure the area until there is enough ressources for a barrack, then build turrets and some engineers should have revive."

The side with the barracks plays out alright like it should (it plays out like a 2.22 game), but the side without barracks is horrible. The infantry there aren't given a chance to get a spawnpoint. Most of the time there is spend idling and turtling with walls and turrets because people are scared to actually engage the enemy unless the enemy is running towards them. When they die, they have to run all the way back which is inefficient and makes teamwork harder because it scatters the teams.

"This is a nice but risky strategy. If it works, the team receives an advantage. If not the other team. In my opinion this is exactly the way how a match should be."

If losing a forward base means losing the entire game. why even expand at all?


"The vehicles are a different problem. Compared to infantry they are overpowered right now."

All the problems are tied together. Because buildings and infantry are weak compared to vehicles, rushing standard tanks works. Now instead of sticky rushs, you have AFV rushes


"Later in the game barracks aren't that important, because you have tanks. Then you have to save the resources for them."

aren't important? Barracks are always important. Barracks cost less than a AFV with upgraded armor.


"In general I would like to see in the next release higher costs for everything or something equals, which has the same result.
Less armor or more weapon power has the same effect."

High costs better include more resources gained equal the the cost increase. Do you really believe Empires will be more fun if coms are more stingy and you are lucky to get 1 tank in an entire game?


"You can summarize this easily:
Higher costs --> more strategy"

Higher costs and nerfs are most of the time elitist ways to beliefs to make a game more "skill orientated". Elitists don't want cheaper tanks because they want tanks to be so rare, flimsy, and hard to use that only the elitists can use it and noobs shouldn't even dream of riding in one unless all the "pro"s have a tank and the team has enough money for 10 more tanks while the enemy is near dead. Elitists want more expensive barracks so that they can boast about how they can do better with 1 barracks than "noobs" can do with 10 barracks. Elitists want nerfs even when buffs can work better so gameplay can be harder and lives are shorter.
Basically Elitists want to kill fun. Higher costs do not make more strategy, it promotes the opposite. Everyone knows doing an experiment more times makes outliers less prevalent. If everything costs more and tanks were so expensive each team could only afford one, Usually the better tank driver is going to win. There is a smaller chance that the less strategically place tank with the less skillful driver is going to win. If that less skilled tank wins, they win a huge battle. If each team could afford 3 tanks, even if 1 of the less skilled tanks defeats a more skilled tank, theres still 2 more battles to determine who wins the war.
So tell me, how do more expensive tanks and buildings create more strategy, and don't say it forces us to conserve resources because everyone know resources were not growing on trees in 2.22, 2.21, 2.2, or 2.12. Vehicle factorys were still locked before the barracks price was increased. Money was always an issue.



One more huge disadvantage to having to wait for barracks is that it makes speed upgrade in the beginning useless. Speed upgrade is used to make the front lines of the battle as far into enemy territory in the beginning of the game as possible. In 2.22, I take my tango squad and push up as fall as I could until I met the enemy and then asked my com for a barracks so I could maintain the position and move up. Now I'll push up and idle in a open area where the barracks is suppose to go which is pointless because I could have traded speed upgrade for a repair or revive.
Another huge problem is it gives people are hard time to recover from losses in the beginning. Once that first barracks goes down, its usually smooth sailing straight up to the enemies base because they can't afford another barrack to intercept the enemy force.

 

Yeah, but early gamae is when it matters a lot

I really like the increased rax cost idea.

have it 150 + x^2(25)

 

No dev ever said the price increase was because of rax spam, it was changed to force more strategic choices at start.

 

...

Before: The placing and defending of baracks was strategic move and you therefore had to do a lot of strategic decisions at the beginning of the map.

Now: You only have to choose wether to place a baracks or a VF. (read: radar is a must, not an option) There are 2 options and without forward rax you're in an inadvantage.

Summary:
Before, there was a lot of strategic decisions to be made in the beginning of the game.
Now, there are 2 strategic choices in the beginning of the game to be made.

 

The side, which lost the starting barracks of course has a disadvantage. But if they don't lost all their refs, then they could build a new barracks some time later. And they have to fight better for the refs, to catch up to the other team.

Depends on the map. See my comment above.

Later in the game there will be tanks, which can drive quickly to the front lines. So vehicle factory is more important. Because of this normally vehilce factory is the first aim of the attackers. Then they destroy barracks.

1 tank of course is not enough. But I see no reason, why there should be enough ressources to have 15 heavy tanks.

So the trick is to find the correct balance. I thought to increase the cost about 25%.
The idea is: If you buy many heavy tanks and they get crushed, you should not be able to spawn new heavy tanks immediatelly. Else this results in boring and endless tank wars.

As I started with empires, I rarely used a tank, because it is difficult to do something usefull. First you have to configure your tank, which isn't allways self-explanatory. Kill other tanks or infantry is not easy. You must learn to handle stickys, mines, RPG, ML turrets, heat, ...
So I choosed engineer, the class which is very noob friendly. Just walk with other players and help them to build. Or stay behind front lines and heal other players. Or go to a lonely refinery and destroy it. Or build some turrets at main base. Or ...
All not very difficult things, but very important.

Because cost should only be increased slightly, I see no problem if a noob want's to drive a tank. There are still enough ressources. But I see a problem if there are too much ressources, so that you must drive a tank. Else for example your 3 heavy tanks are overrolled by the 10 heavy tanks from the enemy.

But allways think about, that the enemy has the same problem. So if the com give your squad a barracks at front line the enemy com maybe places a barracks at the other front line. So the first move on a map not allways look the same. Maybe then there is some room for new strategies.

 

Hurr durr new version borked my 1-trick-win-strategy.
/thread

 

"The side, which lost the starting barracks of course has a disadvantage. But if they don't lost all their refs, then they could build a new barracks some time later. And they have to fight better for the refs, to catch up to the other team."

Some time later? you mean by the time the other team has 3/4 of the map and you are cornered in your starting base? Where do you put the barracks then?

"Later in the game there will be tanks, which can drive quickly to the front lines. So vehicle factory is more important. Because of this normally vehilce factory is the first aim of the attackers. Then they destroy barracks."

Thats funny, because most of the times, players try to take out the barracks first since 400 resources for a vehicle factory is nothing when there is a steady supply of engineers nearby to build it.
You want tanks to cost more, yet you don't want barracks because you think spawning forward is useless and people should just by a tank to drive forward?

"1 tank of course is not enough. But I see no reason, why there should be enough ressources to have 15 heavy tanks.

So the trick is to find the correct balance. I thought to increase the cost about 25%.
The idea is: If you buy many heavy tanks and they get crushed, you should not be able to spawn new heavy tanks immediatelly. Else this results in boring and endless tank wars."

I mean 1 tank for each person on the team for the entire game, so yeah thats about 15 tanks. I told you, money is always an issue. Many times teams have 10000 resources and once they get 800 dollar tanks, resources drop so that com needs to restrict vehicle factory. 15 heavy tanks costs around 12000 dollars. If you have twice that much money, you are probably going to win anyways because you have all the refineries.

"As I started with empires, I rarely used a tank, because it is difficult to do something usefull. First you have to configure your tank, which isn't allways self-explanatory. Kill other tanks or infantry is not easy. You must learn to handle stickys, mines, RPG, ML turrets, heat, ...
So I choosed engineer, the class which is very noob friendly. Just walk with other players and help them to build. Or stay behind front lines and heal other players. Or go to a lonely refinery and destroy it. Or build some turrets at main base. Or ...
All not very difficult things, but very important.

Because cost should only be increased slightly, I see no problem if a noob want's to drive a tank. There are still enough ressources. But I see a problem if there are too much ressources, so that you must drive a tank. Else for example your 3 heavy tanks are overrolled by the 10 heavy tanks from the enemy."

I really think the difficulty and learning curve of Empires is greatly exaggerated. How hard can it be to drag some weapons and armor on your tank to customize it? If you are incompetent and cannot build a tank, the commander can make one for you. After you die by your first sticky or mine, you'll learn to watch out for those things. Even noobs should get in tanks because it is so much easier to be efficient when you can travel with your team instead of lagging behind on foot.

As I said again, money will always be an issue.

What do you mean by 10 heavy tanks vs 3? The way I see it, number of tanks are restricted by resources, which both teams should have a pretty equal number of if you don't count any spent, and people willing to drive.

"But allways think about, that the enemy has the same problem. So if the com give your squad a barracks at front line the enemy com maybe places a barracks at the other front line. So the first move on a map not allways look the same. Maybe then there is some room for new strategies."

No strategy. Your speed upgrade is wasted because you cannot get a building up. Even if you push further up, you either get your barracks, and the other team wastes their effort in pushing up, or you waste it because you didn't get a barracks.

 

"I mean 1 tank for each person on the team for the entire game, so yeah thats about 15 tanks. I told you, money is always an issue. Many times teams have 10000 resources and once they get 800 dollar tanks, resources drop so that com needs to restrict vehicle factory. 15 heavy tanks costs around 12000 dollars. If you have twice that much money, you are probably going to win anyways because you have all the refineries."

If you have twice that you've proberly already been dominating the entire game.

"I really think the difficulty and learning curve of Empires is greatly exaggerated. How hard can it be to drag some weapons and armor on your tank to customize it? If you are incompetent and cannot build a tank, the commander can make one for you. After you die by your first sticky or mine, you'll learn to watch out for those things. Even noobs should get in tanks because it is so much easier to be efficient when you can travel with your team instead of lagging behind on foot."

Comparing Empires to a much higher learning curve - Eve online, i picked up empires in my first day playing. Mostly thanks to playing similar games prior. Without asking stupid noobish questions too. Perhaps it was because i was used to a steep learning curve and i didn't do much more than infantry work (As an engineer, mostly at first). The major learning curve is in the commanding and providing you don't do that, the game really isn't that complex. (Just know what guns to shoot at what, really.)

And money SHOULD be an issue. Otherwise you'd be rolling out tanks every two minutes with no reguard of keeping it alive - which spends tickets. Lack of money = keeping armour alive. Which could be considered "Strategy".

I recall being told by my CV in a streets (the one with the urban-style combat, dark) to keep that ATF alive because we had only one res. I did that, using cover to peek back and fourth to shoot at the heavies to scared to press because of the number of grennies i had tucked beside me. And we actually won that, going on the offensive when their tickets dropped low enough to begin pushing back, at this point they were down to four heavies and one arty - which was why we had to push fast, as he was shelling our CV.

The game will always be governed by three factors; luck, skill and strategy. If you have two of those in excess in your team, you've got the chance to get as much res as possible and push harder with armour.

Raising the cost of the Rax means you can't place them all over the place so quickly in the opening part of the match and also encourages teamwork to defend it, as it's clearly valuable especially during the opening phase. (When res isn't immediately available.)

And weighing between a VF and a Rax, the Rax can be lost easily on the front lines, so that could be 400 res wasted. But then vehicles are expensive too, which could cost alot more res in the long-run if your team is crap - or just make a mistake.

 

So are you for or against me?

anyways

You can't defend what isn't there, and it won't be there for a long time because there are also refineries to build. What are the infantry suppose to do while waiting for the barracks, run around in circles?

Getting a barracks before a vehicle factory should be a given, but because of the plain armor buff and weaker grenadiers, people now sometimes rush paper AFVs

 

Vehicle anti-infantry weapons need nerf. MG's and HE specifically. I haven't played 2.23 yet, but, reading page 7 of this thread, they are right. Infantry don't support tanks.

They. Just. Die.

 

You mean, they die long before they can put a dent in the god armor tanks field now?

 

This man, he knows what he's talking about. SIP's arguements are really wierd.