|
|
Post by andrei on Aug 4, 2020 13:36:55 GMT
Under active commander it is anyway instakill. Why do I need 400% if 175% is enough to kill? Quantity is not that topical, not very often can attack so many enemies at once. But it’s strictly better than Sniper Master and the like and doesn’t cost a commander skill. The only real cost is Holy Relics and legendary set bonus. I’ve already explained why some legendary set bonuses are worth giving up, and Holy Relics are exclusively used to upgrade artifacts. That’s only a problem if you have the energy ring, which costs a staggering 6000 medals. Meanwhile Sniper Master costs medals to upgrade when you’ve got way better stuff to spend medals on. I don’t really understand your way of thinking quite frankly. Maybe you’re seeing this from the perspective where you’re at the endgame and just got the update, but that’s not relevant for most people. In case it is not relevant for newcomers then it is not relevant if speaking about legendary sets. I completed the game content without legendary items. Only those received as a reward for conquests/campaigns were used iirc. Yes.I upgraded sniper master after completing the game. But it doesn't mean everyone is going to ignore it as I did. I ignored legendaries, You don't. Everybody is using his own way. |
|
|
|
Post by yuanzhong on Aug 4, 2020 13:47:38 GMT
Just for example while combine with 2 commander buff. And it's normal when people think and play different to each other. Game is for relaxing and getting fun.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Aug 4, 2020 13:55:44 GMT
Just for example while combine with 2 commander buff. And it's normal when people think and play different to each other. Game is for relaxing and getting fun.  , I have Washington, I know he can one-shot anyone in the game under commanders buff. It was not the issue of the discussion. I don't want one gen dealing overdamage. I prefer to make all gens powerful. And in case Washington or Nobunaga can anyway kill any enemy in one shot I simply don't see any reason to give them Artifact. There is no logic in such approach. |
|
|
|
Post by yuanzhong on Aug 4, 2020 14:05:16 GMT
Just for example while combine with 2 commander buff. And it's normal when people think and play different to each other. Game is for relaxing and getting fun. , I have Washington, I know he can one-shot anyone in the game under commanders buff. It was not the issue of the discussion. I don't want one gen dealing overdamage. I prefer to make all gens powerful. And in case Washington or Nobunaga can anyway kill any enemy in one shot I simply don't see any reason to give them Artifact. There is no logic in such approach. But not full HP general like this ^^!.   |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Aug 4, 2020 14:07:54 GMT
yuanzhong , I have Washington, I know he can one-shot anyone in the game under commanders buff. It was not the issue of the discussion. I don't want one gen dealing overdamage. I prefer to make all gens powerful. And in case Washington or Nobunaga can anyway kill any enemy in one shot I simply don't see any reason to give them Artifact. There is no logic in such approach. But not full HP general like this ^^!. Maybe not eveery time but 5k+ under 2 commanders is possible for my Washington with Keel set. Iirc max I saw with my Washington was 6k+ (crit as I understand - red marked damage) |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Aug 4, 2020 14:11:43 GMT
But it’s strictly better than Sniper Master and the like and doesn’t cost a commander skill. The only real cost is Holy Relics and legendary set bonus. I’ve already explained why some legendary set bonuses are worth giving up, and Holy Relics are exclusively used to upgrade artifacts. That’s only a problem if you have the energy ring, which costs a staggering 6000 medals. Meanwhile Sniper Master costs medals to upgrade when you’ve got way better stuff to spend medals on. I don’t really understand your way of thinking quite frankly. Maybe you’re seeing this from the perspective where you’re at the endgame and just got the update, but that’s not relevant for most people. In case it is not relevant for newcomers then it is not relevant if speaking about legendary sets. I completed the game content without legendary items. Only those received as a reward for conquests/campaigns were used iirc. Yes.I upgraded sniper master after completing the game. But it doesn't mean everyone is going to ignore it as I did. I ignored legendaries, You don't. Everybody is using his own way. I’m not sure why you think I’m using the legendary items. I don’t have them yet. I’m considering them when I compare stuff because of course I have to consider other options. When communities of strategy games don’t do that people come up with amazingly bad metagames. The EW6 idea of getting Massena first and every aura general for example was really popular but it’s really stupid actually. Yeah it works, but it’s inefficient and totally bad advice. And this right now is just like that. Scarlet Flash is strictly better than Sniper master and has no real cost unless you’re thinking insanely long term with the Energy Ring. Why the heck should I take the inferior option? |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Aug 4, 2020 14:21:58 GMT
In case it is not relevant for newcomers then it is not relevant if speaking about legendary sets. I completed the game content without legendary items. Only those received as a reward for conquests/campaigns were used iirc. Yes.I upgraded sniper master after completing the game. But it doesn't mean everyone is going to ignore it as I did. I ignored legendaries, You don't. Everybody is using his own way. I’m not sure why you think I’m using the legendary items. I don’t have them yet. I’m considering them when I compare stuff because of course I have to consider other options. When communities of strategy games don’t do that people come up with amazingly bad metagames. The EW6 idea of getting Massena first and every aura general for example was really popular but it’s really stupid actually. Yeah it works, but it’s inefficient and totally bad advice. And this right now is just like that. Scarlet Flash is strictly better than Sniper master and has no real cost unless you’re thinking insanely long term with the Energy Ring. Why the heck should I take the inferior option? Don't take it I am considering artifact as a player who has legendary sets and best skills upgraded already and I can't see them seriuosly better than what I have now. That's what I am talking about. Never was trying to convince anyone that these artifacts are bad or something like that  It is just strange that You are ready to discuss artifacts in context of legendary sets but not in contexts of skills upgrade (like sniper master) Someone can ignore sets, someone can ignore skills. Why do You only compare it with skills? |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Aug 4, 2020 15:03:42 GMT
I’m not sure why you think I’m using the legendary items. I don’t have them yet. I’m considering them when I compare stuff because of course I have to consider other options. When communities of strategy games don’t do that people come up with amazingly bad metagames. The EW6 idea of getting Massena first and every aura general for example was really popular but it’s really stupid actually. Yeah it works, but it’s inefficient and totally bad advice. And this right now is just like that. Scarlet Flash is strictly better than Sniper master and has no real cost unless you’re thinking insanely long term with the Energy Ring. Why the heck should I take the inferior option? Don't take it I am considering artifact as a player who has legendary sets and best skills upgraded already and I can't see them seriuosly better than what I have now. That's what I am talking about. Never was trying to convince anyone that these artifacts are bad or something like that It is just strange that You are ready to discuss artifacts in context of legendary sets but not in contexts of skills upgrade (like sniper master) Someone can ignore sets, someone can ignore skills. Why do You only compare it with skills? I am considering artifacts in context of both legendary sets and skills. The stats on the artifacts when highly upgraded look better than some of the legendary items even when the set bonus is taken into account. Only one commander is able to use both artifact skills and the commander skill without sacrificing the other too much. So usually you have to compare it with Sniper Master and the like. The artifact abilities are clearly superior to the normal actives. And every single one of these points I’ve outlined in my previous posts. Yeah they’re not useful for you (right now). I misunderstood you there, but I think I’ve made it clear that they’re still pretty good for most other people. Honestly though I still don’t understand why you’d think like you did since they’d obviously be bad when they’re fresh out of the box while everything else you have is maxed, but I think we can put this squabble to rest now. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Aug 4, 2020 15:17:50 GMT
Don't take it I am considering artifact as a player who has legendary sets and best skills upgraded already and I can't see them seriuosly better than what I have now. That's what I am talking about. Never was trying to convince anyone that these artifacts are bad or something like that It is just strange that You are ready to discuss artifacts in context of legendary sets but not in contexts of skills upgrade (like sniper master) Someone can ignore sets, someone can ignore skills. Why do You only compare it with skills? I am considering artifacts in context of both legendary sets and skills. The stats on the artifacts when highly upgraded look better than some of the legendary items even when the set bonus is taken into account. Only one commander is able to use both artifact skills and the commander skill without sacrificing the other too much. So usually you have to compare it with Sniper Master and the like. The artifact abilities are clearly superior to the normal actives. And every single one of these points I’ve outlined in my previous posts. Yeah they’re not useful for you (right now). I misunderstood you there, but I think I’ve made it clear that they’re still pretty good for most other people. Honestly though I still don’t understand why you’d think like you did since they’d obviously be bad when they’re fresh out of the box while everything else you have is maxed, but I think we can put this squabble to rest now. Just to mention once again. Obviously artifacts are not bad. When I say I don't want to swap because I like sniper master or sets I mean myself not anyone else as I have no idea what are the sets and lineups people use. So, yes, it is pretty useless (by far) for me. Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Aug 4, 2020 16:21:19 GMT
In case it is not relevant for newcomers then it is not relevant if speaking about legendary sets. I completed the game content without legendary items. Only those received as a reward for conquests/campaigns were used iirc. Yes.I upgraded sniper master after completing the game. But it doesn't mean everyone is going to ignore it as I did. I ignored legendaries, You don't. Everybody is using his own way. I’m not sure why you think I’m using the legendary items. I don’t have them yet. I’m considering them when I compare stuff because of course I have to consider other options. When communities of strategy games don’t do that people come up with amazingly bad metagames. The EW6 idea of getting Massena first and every aura general for example was really popular but it’s really stupid actually. Yeah it works, but it’s inefficient and totally bad advice. And this right now is just like that. Scarlet Flash is strictly better than Sniper master and has no real cost unless you’re thinking insanely long term with the Energy Ring. Why the heck should I take the inferior option? Well, I completed EW6 with Massena and 3 more Infantry generals. The only two missions I completed with 2 stars were Baltic see campaign, Balaclava and Siege. I completed all other missions with 3 stars. Besides, I completed 1815 conquest under 30 turns with my infantry team. My point is it is perfectly playable  And, exactly as andrei did it, I completed EW5 without any full legendary set... |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Aug 4, 2020 16:35:59 GMT
I’m not sure why you think I’m using the legendary items. I don’t have them yet. I’m considering them when I compare stuff because of course I have to consider other options. When communities of strategy games don’t do that people come up with amazingly bad metagames. The EW6 idea of getting Massena first and every aura general for example was really popular but it’s really stupid actually. Yeah it works, but it’s inefficient and totally bad advice. And this right now is just like that. Scarlet Flash is strictly better than Sniper master and has no real cost unless you’re thinking insanely long term with the Energy Ring. Why the heck should I take the inferior option? Well, I completed EW6 with Massena and 3 more Infantry generals. The only two missions I completed with 2 stars were Baltic see campaign, Balaclava and Siege. I completed all other missions with 3 stars. Besides, I completed 1815 conquest under 30 turns with my infantry team. My point is it is perfectly playable And, exactly as andrei did it, I completed EW5 without any full legendary set... I did say it totally works, but it’s still isn’t good. Massena is not the best starter general for a myriad of reasons. Ney/Murat is way better. And cavalry generals outclasses infantry generals in EW6 in quite literally every aspect except for sieging up extremely large battered countries like Russia. Siege was not difficult at all for me. I’m the only person who has beaten a conquest in 14 turns. Etc. I think you’re a better player than me, but that infantry strategy still blows. I’m impressed you managed to beat so much with an infantry team, but that’s not what I would recommend anyone starting out to play with. I might pick up the legendary sets or not. Depends on whether I have better options later on. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Aug 4, 2020 16:58:23 GMT
Well, I completed EW6 with Massena and 3 more Infantry generals. The only two missions I completed with 2 stars were Baltic see campaign, Balaclava and Siege. I completed all other missions with 3 stars. Besides, I completed 1815 conquest under 30 turns with my infantry team. My point is it is perfectly playable And, exactly as andrei did it, I completed EW5 without any full legendary set... I did say it totally works, but it’s still isn’t good. Massena is not the best starter general for a myriad of reasons. Ney/Murat is way better. And cavalry outclasses infantry in EW6 in quite literally every aspect except for sieging up extremely large battered countries like Russia. Siege was not difficult at all for me. I’m the only person who has beaten a conquest in 14 turns. Etc. I think you’re a better player than me, but that infantry strategy still blows. I’m impressed you managed to beat so much with an infantry team, but that’s not what I would recommend anyone starting out to play with. I might pick up the legendary sets or not. Depends on whether I have better options later on. You had Blucher and it is not an option everyone has. So, it is debatable whether 2 cavalry Commanders can outclass 3 Infantry Commanders. Besides, it is not either/or situation I had Murat and Dabrowski as well. Three lines: Massena/Karl/Barclay Murat/Dabrowsi/Ney(or Nelson for naval missions) Alexander/Mahmud are solid for every content in the game and affordable for every player. What could be wrong with that? The only problem with Siege and Balaclava was a stupid limitation. To get 3 stars in Siege we couldn't use Infantry (and that was a half of my team). But, I guess, every player with cavalry team had big problems with Balaclava when there was a ban on using cavalry. And I have to agree with andrei as well. Sniper master is not a waste, since it is percentage based. If I had a choice between upgrading Sniper master and to buy a Paladin sword to complete the set, I would do the former without doubt. New artifacts may change this, but, again, Washington with 2 commanders nearby, in a full legendary set and with fully upgraded Sniper master will kill a cavalry general (with 6k HP) anyway because of his OP passive ability. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Aug 4, 2020 17:15:03 GMT
My thought is that powerful cavalry generals are better suited for new artifacts than archers. Suleiman, for example, or Saladin...
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Aug 5, 2020 5:27:09 GMT
So, here it is... Attila under Commander buff restored his rage bar and ready to throw his javelin... The question is whether I really want to do it, or to wait a turn and to activate his Commander buff again. I think in most situations the latter is preferable. Besides, it is not so easy to accumulate mana so fast in Industrial age. So, even Attila (let alone other Commanders) will not profit greatly from using an artifact instead of usual weapon... It is really a puzzle for me now who will do it in my eventual team...  |
|
|
|
Post by Iron Duke on Aug 5, 2020 9:22:21 GMT
So, here it is... Attila under Commander buff restored his rage bar and ready to throw his javelin... The question is whether I really want to do it, or to wait a turn and to activate his Commander buff again. I think in most situations the latter is preferable. Besides, it is not so easy to accumulate mana so fast in Industrial age. So, even Attila (let alone other Commanders) will not profit greatly from using an artifact instead of usual weapon... It is really a puzzle for me now who will do it in my eventual team... I wonder if the Odin reference is relevant at all? Has anyone tried using it with the Odin set? |
|
, I have Washington, I know he can one-shot anyone in the game under commanders buff. It was not the issue of the discussion. I don't want one gen dealing overdamage. I prefer to make all gens powerful. And in case Washington or Nobunaga can anyway kill any enemy in one shot I simply don't see any reason to give them Artifact. There is no logic in such approach. 
It is just strange that You are ready to discuss artifacts in context of legendary sets but not in contexts of skills upgrade (like sniper master)
