Sorry but theres no hope for you if you with your current logic(or should I say illogic?) and self brainwashing.


Edit: also something to add is notice how its always the alien race(or most alien) that is over powered. This is a topic about favorites really not balance and you want it to mimic the one your familiar with(because then you know what to expect) which happens to be the most popular. I bet that you will find more 'nerf this' noob posts about Advent and Vasari then you will ever TEC simply because its the 'favorite child'. Go ahead trash my post some more but I'm fed up with this thread now because you have clearly made up your(meaning all those whining) minds and are closed to all arguments against.


P.S. Damn now I know why game devs and what not don't like getting to involved in the forums.

@bubb9 == troll


Its true that if he know about the RA he will not be able to sit back and and is kinda forced to attack. But this condition applies anyway to win the game. There is some kind of psychological element thought, the pressure of the "impending doom". That will have some effect.

I cant see where you pointing me with your arguments. Maybe you are going to obselete my reasoning completely. In any case i want to highlight the core of my last post again.

Given the first id say the player could win the game with or without RA. RA just finishes the opponent off.
Say the player is in advantage, although still in defense and is getting RA, he is going to win, he would have won anyway.
Say he is in peril and getting RA can he turn the game around? It think it might be worth looking at which point RA can take you out of a loosing situation. Its kinda a precondition of the RA's further effect on the game.

There is no doubt that RA is powerful. So i try to elaborate on the "precondition". With this thought i tried to get a away from all the different scenarios and put it more on a abstract level where we have that state of the player before RA, the precondition. Depending on the precondition i like to asses then how much OP RA is.

Say the player is in advantage, although still in defense and is getting RA, he is going to win, he would have won anyway.
With advantage i meant that given the game goes on, the vasari wins anyway. Dont apply any ifs on this its just that the player is going to win. The end result is that RA doesnt matter. Id like to add that a balanced game situation , aka stalemate + RA, is a advantage for the vasari too, in which case the player wins too.


Say he is in peril and getting RA can he turn the game around?

Now where is the point when introduction of RA doesnt matter. Or said differently : How much do i have to beat down the vasari to make RA worthless for him?

Wouldn't this be a factor to assess RA? I think so!

I don't deny here facts like a RA gate / research paying of very quickly (how long is that anyway? ) or that you can have 3 of them around one planet. It is VERY EFFICIENT in its operation no doubt.

Well this need some testing to see how big opponent fleet are and how crippled the vasari economy is in all the changing configuration to actually figure out that point.
But what i can say without this knowledge is that the close this point is to the player complete destruction the more OP i would assess RA.
Last thought. I tihnk many ppl might see the term OP black and white. I would rather think in termn of a little op, alot op, etc.

grmpf.. damn forums.

RA get's positively ridiculous as you increase your supply........at max supply I went -200 over the ship cap and had 2502 supply............RA shoved out 50 skarovas, 30 kanraks, 20 ravastras, 20 lasuraks, a dozen serevuns, and more.........i don't care how balanced your fleet is you cannot fight that. And even if you can destroy all that they just respawn for free

Advent and TEC don't have anything that even remotely compares to this

Advent might have a chance if they have a pair of lvl 6 Radiance's with cleansing brilliance and a progenitor with lvl 3 malice. Problem is, the Advent player has to play it perfect in every single engagement. If he screws up and loses once, he's done. The Vasari player will just get a new fleet again, and again, and again.

Oh wow, I can't believe this thing is still going.

First off, hello, wake up, if anything Each race has its own increadibly overpowered ability, I did a LAN party for two days straight with three guys and 7 AI on very hard, guess who won? me, guess what I was? TEC, know why? I had more money than I could spend even if I created Macros to every single planet and frigate factory at those planets, want to know how long it took me to get all that cash? roughly `1-2 hours. Yes, one of them was Vasari,yes he had RA, yes some of the AI was vasari, dunno if they had RA though.

As for the advent, if you get all their culture stuff, it makes the game increadbily lame for most other people, providing you can do it right, you can pretty much kick out every other culture off of every other planet, and when they destroy your planets, they cant take em.

So what if the Vasari get free fleet? Advent get increadibly annoying and overpowered research and culture capabilites, and the TEC get more money than anyone ever needs.

If you people can't play the game to its fullest, don't go whinning cause someone else knows how to use their race effectively.

For one Deliverance Engine you can afford half a dozen Media/Broadcast Centers, and I've never seen worlds flipped without at least five Deliverance Engines due to how incredibly easy they are to counter, they're just inconvenient to any decent enemy (and for the cost the enemy can counter then and build fleets). You can try doing it without Deliverance Engines but because culture must spread along Phase Lines, it's easy to block at choke points, even if the enemy has significantly more centers than you.

So far I've lost a total of one planet to culture-one of the middle worlds on Fulcrum because I was lazy while playing very aggressive as TEC and before I realized it culture was at 6% and falling (but after losing it a quick raid destroyed the broadcast center nearby and I recolonized fairly quickly, much less costly than losing a planet to a military attack though, since all of my structures were still intact). While on the other hand I've lost probably hundreds to military attack. I figure either that means I'm a cultural genius and a military chump, or that's just the way the game generally goes (and by all the replay and strategies I've seen online, I'm inclined to believe the latter).

The only way someone really loses to culture is if they totally neglect that aspect of the game (since literally two centers can stop nearly any culture creep cold). Just the way someone loses if they build no military at all and then are surprised to lose to enemy ships that show up. You can win many games without culture, good luck winning one without a military.

If the game had equal focus on military, culture, and economics, then what you're saying might ring true, but it's far more RTS than anything else, and culture is generally just a sideshow. Economics and Military, one to help build the other, are king. Returning Armada throws things off because it is an incredible combination of both, free ships without end and limitless resources through scuttling. Even TEC with it's crazy economy still needs a military, while Returning Armada can provide both the most important things to winning a game.

If your vasari and your leveling plenty of skirantra carriers and also adding overseers and subverters to your fleet RA is an insta win button period. Most people who lose, and I beat an RA vasari last night as advent, don't know the power of these units which RA doesn't produce, They think tons of hvy cruisers, assailants, and light carriers will kill anyone, it won't especially a well put together advent fleet properly played.

Here's something everyone needs to think about, not only do vasari get phase gate travel, free DA ships, tons of econ upgrades, and a decent ship mix, they also get the skirantra carrier which at level 6 has replicate forces(replicates ships for antimatter). The carrier also has an insanely good heal in repair cloud. Thats a mobile factory and repair base for your fleet with plenty of strikecraft which will have good survivabilty due to micro phase aura. 4+ of these things at level 6+ supporting your fleet is nigh unstoppable cause now your getting your RA fleet + your distant fleets have 4 factories in tow with them also making ships for free. The overseers will let u chase down fleets as well as provide good healing and the subverters will help you counter those nasty advent fleets.

RA is one component of the unstoppable vasari machine but its the most OP one and the one that should get nerfed.

OK after reading some and experimenting with some friends I have to agree that RA has some issues. I took the time to read through this whole thread but didn't bother with any of the others yet so correct me if I am rehashing an idea that has already come up.

I like the idea of limiting phase gates to one per system. It is however possible that since this game is not very fond of the idea of limits on structures in general the developers may not opt for this solution.

Simple solution might be just to increase the time between uses significantly and/or reduce the number of ships you get some. This would make it useful for replacing a lost fleet or augmenting one your upgrading quickly but you would not be able to do it constantly. You could save it up as a last ditch defense or as a quick build up for a push but probably not create a sizable long term imbalance.

At the moment it seems that increasing to the second tier of RA increases the quality and quantity of the ships you receive in each wave somewhat. I could be mistaken about this since I have not messed with it extensively and I didn't think to test it with my friends... I researched it on the "more is better" principal. If this is true make the upgrade simply increase quality and not quantity.

In principal I don't like the idea of messing with the stats or scuttle of RA summoned units on principal... most RTS games I have played that were forced to mess with these inherent statistics to balance a single instance of their use created as many balance issues in the long run as they solved.

Personally after some consideration i would favor increasing the time between waves AND reducing average number of units brought in. Phase gates are great already and this would limit it more without changing the basic nature of the tech. Has this been considered some where else. If so I apologize for not reading up more...I don't have a ton of time if I still want to get around to actually playing the game some still.

Notice i am skipping past the "is it a problem" stage and going directly to the "lets see if there is a reasonable solution" stage. There is a reason for that. If I use it to beat some one easily and somehow feel bad (even sad almost) about beating them there is little doubt in my mind there is an issue.

Guys, listen! You cant come here, make up a totaly biased example and build a argument on that.
Everyone can say uhhh RA is not OP cause you actually had no trouble fighting the noob having it.
Or : uhh RA is OP cause you suck at strategy and couldnt build a half decent game while the other guy just sat back and played simcity in space and kicked you away with his excellent eco and RA.
Or : You mass a giant fleet against a vasari CPU and the say RA is not OP but dont know how its using RA....
Or : You just argument with fantasy scenarios and actually never really played a proper game.

You CANT use biased example for assessing these things. Test it out. Think a few days about it. Test some more. Write some sensible thing think again and then post please.#

@redmaw : Your are right with all you say in that post. Culture is not winning the game alone. Even with the deliverance engines you need a lot ( had 6 in a game, didnt manage to flip chokes, it really lame ) to do any harm. Said it in a another post "it puts a dent into the opponents economy"

@aasch: limiting the phase gates i think one of the best solutions i think. I doesnt tamper with the efficiency of RA, doesnt effect the direct phase lane travel much, adds a new element of tactic to the game ( destroy the single phase gate and you delay reinforcements ) AND prevents the spamming of Gates without expansion.
Increasing supply cost to 20 would have a similiar effect but makes the gates more expense and less efficent.
Another way is to reduce the efficiency of RA. Increase cooldown OR/AND antimatter buildup. That would make RA pay off less quickly. Less money == slower increase in fleet size => implications...
Add some more here...

Bajong, I think we should end our far too finicky, diffuse and theoretical discussion, especially since I get the feeling that we basically agree, but continue to nitpick over minor (subjective) details in eachothers words, since our own fantasy scenarios doesn't quite match up. For clarity only, I'll quote my IM to you since I think that's where I best expressed my fundamental point which you seems to agree with:



Luckily, most Vasari players just doesn't seem to realize (or refuse to take advantage of) the fact that they can default to be defensive. So, even though I haven't made it explicitly clear, my main greviance with Returning Armada (with regards to the above) isn't the slight advantage a Vasari player gets by realizing that he can default to be defensive. But rather that I, as his opponent, is limited to play the game in a certain way if I want a realistic chance of winning against a qualified opponent. That just isn't fun.

With regards to what Maldon said, Bajong is right when makes the point that purely anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it when you're trying to refute something, it can support your point, but not be your point. Too many incontrollable variables exists. This is especially the case with AIs since they don't fully take advantage of many of the late game technologies (including RA). With regards to TEC trade, it's unbalanced in it's own right and will be fixed in 1.04, Advent culture on the other hand, is only really powerful if the opponent doesn't take the few relatively easy steps required to adequately combat it. TheRedMaw etc. is right when it comes to this.

I might add more later, I have to go now...

Seems to me that 1) there should be a limit of one phase gate per system and 2) that the returning armada should be a fixed benefit rather than one that varies per phase gate in any case. That is, that it should generate a random but roughly X powerful fleet every Y seconds at a randomly-chosen phase gate. I don't see why the armada's strength should fluctuate depending on the number of gates available for it to come in on.

Question about RA: does blowing up labs stop the ship production?

Unfortunatly for your claim, it has been done, thus can be done, by everyone, if they could perform it correctly, if you can't play in a way to counter the effects, thats your own fault, it IS called a strategy game for a reason, and as for your claims as toward being "anecdotal evidence" I can't be sure as to what your reffering to, due to the fact that there are several definitions that could apply but don't really work in any case, thus Im going to assume you are reffering to it as the second definiton, unfortunatly for yourself, this entire arguement is based on reports made by "usually unscientific observers", we are all gamers here, you guys don't like a feature in the game because you can't figure out how or do not want to play several of the ways required to counter it, thats your problem.

Oh, and in regards to the claim as to culture not being an effective weapon, Ill simply say this, I was playing as the Vasari once, and researched the first two tech levels for culture, I had kicked off an opponents culture off his planet with five minutes, and the Vasari are not particulary strong in culture research in the beginning, thus, if you simply used more than one or two, or three broadcast centers for advent, as well as sufficient culture research, you could give your opponents quite a hectic time.


-edit: oh yes, and its not "Fantasy Scenarios" thank you Bajong, a LAN party hardly qualifies as fantasy, and yes, it was both of them teamed against me simply because I owned the game longer, the AI were against everyone.

But yes, if any "solution" to something that isnt much of a problem in my opinion must be obtained, it would be the limitation of the phase gates, simply because, and to my dissapointment, people tend to stick those on any and every planet.

I think the key problem with RA is rollover. Meaning, where the TEC and Advent tier 8 ultimates are powerful, they're still one-shot mechanisms. You can use it to get a strong advantage, but it's still up to the player to capitalize on that momentum and carry to forward to a victory. With RA, you get a slow but steady build-up of advantage that can then continue be used well after the initial shot.

Some (poorly thought out) solutions might be putting the RA ships on a timer, making them much weaker versions of what they actually are, or maybe simply putting a limit on the number of times any single phase gate can summon units.

Returning Armada still functions with the destruction of Imperial Labs, and the gates can still summon reinforcements even if the planet itself is lost. I was under the impression that destroying the labs could stop it, but scuttling them (and even the planet they were based) on seemed to have no effect. I guess that rules out a Novalith solution, unless you can make enough to destroy every world simultaneously.

Also, Maldon if you have the replay, I would love to see a good player be beaten with culture the way I've seen good players be beaten with Returning Armada. It would be very interesting.

okay first step make RA break when labs are destroyed

It doesn't, at least not in the quick test I just did. It will, however, lower the Vasari player's maximum fleet capacity if it's sufficiently high, and if the Vasari fleet size resultingly exceeds the limit, RA will stop. This, however, is only relevant until a new lab has been built. Then, RA will go into action again, using the antimatter gotten in the interim. So the effect isn't as large as you could have wished, but still somewhat useful.

Maldon, I'll add a reply to you later. Now, Champions League!

@ maldon

quoting you:
Unfortunatly for your claim, it has been done, thus can be done, by everyone, if they could perform it correctly, if you can't play in a way to counter the effects, thats your own fault, it IS called a strategy game for a reason, and as for your claims as toward being "anecdotal evidence" I can't be sure as to what your reffering to, due to the fact that there are several definitions that could apply but don't really work in any case, thus Im going to assume you are reffering to it as the second definiton, unfortunatly for yourself, this entire arguement is based on reports made by "usually unscientific observers", we are all gamers here, you guys don't like a feature in the game because you can't figure out how or do not want to play several of the ways required to counter it, thats your problem.

you wanted to know what "anecdotal evidence" is. This is a example:

Quote you here:
Oh, and in regards to the claim as to culture not being an effective weapon, Ill simply say this, I was playing as the Vasari once, and researched the first two tech levels for culture, I had kicked off an opponents culture off his planet with five minutes, and the Vasari are not particulary strong in culture research in the beginning, thus, if you simply used more than one or two, or three broadcast centers for advent, as well as sufficient culture research, you could give your opponents quite a hectic time.


@vanchka, i am a bit insulted;). I think that i reached a point where i can assess RA better, thanks to your and others help in sparking thoughts.

@others: breaking it as soon the labs limit sinks under minimum for RA. It give you a tactical option to tamper with his RA ability.
If you can strike hard at this you gain a good advantage. If its just a lab or two you might delay about. Could be counterd by building the labs further back in the country.
All in all its a fix for the effect of the problem not a fix of the source of the problem.
You could add it for the sake of giving the player more tactial option.
The value to reduce OP of RA i would assess very low.

lemme say something to #111:

Luckily, most Vasari players just doesn't seem to realize (or refuse to take advantage of) the fact that they can default to be defensive. So, even though I haven't made it explicitly clear, my main greviance with Returning Armada (with regards to the above) isn't the slight advantage a Vasari player gets by realizing that he can default to be defensive. But rather that I, as his opponent, is limited to play the game in a certain way if I want a realistic chance of winning against a qualified opponent. That just isn't fun.

Allright . i acutally agree that the vasari can default to defense, cause of RA which then will bring him out of the defense, under some circumstances, not in all cases all! I always can reads the "in a stalemate game" between your lines.

Lemme think here: Stalemate in this circumstance would be : Defense + RA buildup against Offensive which leads to vasari win OR: the opponent plays defensive too vasari wins too. Id say we can agree on this that it actually would happen.

Lemme say that differently : Vasari player skill + defensive advantage - RA buildup ( minus cause it is actually a negative until RA comes into play) against offensive player skill + offensive advantages. If these factors equal out (stalemate) the vasari wins.

Other scenario: Vasari player skill + defensive advantage against another defensive player, no real fighting here.
At some point the vasaries players resources (you can count ships as resources) raise due to RA. Here both races fight with their economies, kinda cold war.

Could there be any reasonable research path of the other two races that actually comes close to the vasary gain?

I still wonder about beeing forced to play a certain way. Isnt this the case all the time. Stone, Scissor, Paper. You are forced to go down some route anyway.
And on the other hand you are always open to choose your path and force your opponent to play your game, initiative ...

But rather that I, as his opponent, is limited to play the game in a certain way if I want a realistic chance of winning against a qualified opponent. That just isn't fun

What you are implying vaneshka is that this games current balance does not support much strategies to choose from. They are limited true, but there are some i believe. I think that was one of my statements before: if you can come up with a strat supported by the current game balance the ability is OP+++ or call it godlike or whatever. But...( i really hate these buts that contradict myself) *
I would even go that far to say, as soon as you know how to counter it, it is a instant win for you if someone chooses to go for RA.

Well i am pretty much convinced that its OP but still not how much, to know that would be a good thing to assess how much nerf is needed.

*Since this is a game and it has to be fun for many people ( economic considerations ), not only fun for the uber geeks which know all the tricks. The path to beat up the RA strat must not be to narrow.
The game needs to progress smoother (vaneshka's conclusions somewhere in the thread) in its development and avoid effects like RA has (very steep increase in resource (ships can count as resources) generation).

[quote]This is a example:Quote you here:Oh, and in regards to the claim as to culture not being an effective weapon, Ill simply say this, I was playing as the Vasari once, and researched the first two tech levels for culture, I had kicked off an opponents culture off his planet with five minutes, and the Vasari are not particulary strong in culture research in the beginning, thus, if you simply used more than one or two, or three broadcast centers for advent, as well as sufficient culture research, you could give your opponents quite a hectic time.[quote]

Anecdotal Evidence:"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation" Thats funny, I could have sworn this entire topic is filled with anecdotal evidence, after all, this is all either personal opinions, or reports from games we have played, or speculation.
I do not believe you can scientifically investigate a computer game, since it is all really just programming code in a graphical overlay. Its not really possible to scientifically evaluate a programming language thank you.

Moving on, now, it really does seem like most of the people,(note:Most, not all), whom have simply strolled into this thread crying for the removal or alteration, have NEVER ACTUALLY PLAYED AS VASARI AND ARE SEEING THIS ONLY FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE OPPOSING PLAYER, go seriously play all three races for a good length of time before crying that one specific technology for the race that, according to lore, is THE most powerful race currently featured in the game, (due to the fact that the race chasing them is NOT featured as a playable faction or in the game itself except for what I believe is a breif mention in the opening cinematic, I could be wrong, it might not even be mentioned in the cinematic itself, I do not recall.), RA itself fits into that lore, by bringing escaping ships to YOUR planets, while there could be less of a random variable, and thus limiting the amount of Skarvos Enforcers and carriers that arrive through RA, that would require some more programing tweaking on the Dev part, and if memory serves, they already said they will be balancing RA out even smoother, there are several likely ways to do this, with the possiblility of limiting phase stabilizers and/or reducing the randomness (not a word but it fits the best) of the ships that show up through the phase stabilizer, so that it would feature weaker ships, like pherhaps the Ravistra Skirmisher.

I think thats it, Im going back to my Advent game to get a better feel for their culture capabilities.

Maldon: You're wrong. The realization that Vasari RA is overpowered comes from exploiting it, and I have the feeling that at least most of the people who suggested fixes actually did know what they were talking about.

(Except the labs based fix, to me seems just as un-viable as destroying gates currently is, without an array of other changes. Disabling scuttle for one would again be a must).


Of course, you have no guarantees that we've not only played against bad players (or, synonymously, AI). So go and actually TRY to exploit RA.
One of the most easily replicated scenario-of-proof that RA is overpowered: Play a large or huge map, have a human TEC ally player who mainly pimps you with resources and planets from start to RA (only getting research or planets when it helps overall speed).

Bajong:

I only really have a few things to note:

1. It's important to remember that the cost of researching Returning Armada at any given time can be either neutral or negatively. As I said earlier, it's striking a
balance being capable of fending off the enemy, while getting edging closer to introduce Returning Armada. You have to adapt to the flow of the game. In other words, it's about ensuring that the two sides of the equation conjoined by yours are equal.

Vasari Skill + Defensive Advantage - Returning Armada Cost = Enemy Skill

If one of the two sides inherently (due to player skill) are bigger than the other, there's no need/use for Returning Armada, the game should be decided already.

2. The offensive player's advantage isn't tangible, but solely consists of minimizing the advantage of the defensive player by utilizing the fact that he has the initiative to the fullest and attack the enemy's weakest planet(s). It's effect is 100% of the player's skills (but then again, so is the size of the defensive advantage).

3. Given what you call an economic cold war, I think it'll be essential for the outcome that, relatively speaking, the Vasari economy has the potential to grow stronger over time compared to the TEC/Advent economy which becomes weaker over time. This is naturally caused by the fact that a large percentage of the raw income the other race enjoys (typically larger than the Vasari's) is tied to fleet production, while the Vasari economy is largely independant from the Vasari fleet and can be used to improve itself.

4. You're right that, unless a player is completely ignorant, he's going to have to adjust to his opposition's tactics. There's a causality (action and reaction) at play when it comes to tactics and I wouldn't have it any other way. My issue, however, is with the fact that a player's chosen race predetermines the overall strategy another player will have to use in order to win. That's to limit a player before the causality of the game itself goes into effect (first contact with the enemy).

Finally, I would like to admit that yes, most of my statements require that there's something resembling stalemate (or equality of skill) in order to really come into play. And add that I never intended to insult you and I've enjoyed our discussion, so I honestly hope you were just kidding!

To Maldon:

You're looking at definitions of the term when used in a scientific context, which really aren't applicable to what I said, or at least intended to say. I don't demand statistical evidence, nor that everybody adheres to rigorous scientific methods. So, despite what you and others might think, I'm not asking every poster to write a Ph.D. about Returning Armada

Now, just for reference, take a look at what I said:



I checked Wikipedia to see if I'd misused the term, and figured that you had probably done something similar. So, I'm going to use it as basis for what I'm going to say. As Wikipedia says, the term "anecdotal evidence" is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation. Lets take a look at your own example of anecdotal evidence:



There's no way for me to adequately refute your conclusion as I can't reliably replicate your results since many variables are unknown. i.e. what was the allegiance of the planet in the beginning (25? 110?), how many broadcast centers influenced the planet? Did he have any anti-culture technologies researched or any culture structures of his own? Was he human or AI and what race was he? My own anecdotal evidence when it comes to culture is that I, in several AI games and 75+ games online, haven't once lost a planet to culture. But there's no way for you to know what factors where in effect for me to achieve this. This is a problem due to the fact that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is. Another issue is that people actually have a tendency to trust anecdotal evidence more than statistical evidence.

Good examples of wrongly used anecdotal evidence is a few of the strategy threads made by Kruelgor, who didn't try to neutralize the variables that only implicitly affected his strategies when he tested them. In effect they were flawed but widely used. At least we got some good discussions out of it (albeit far too much flaming on the part of others). Thanks to flawed inductive reasoning, far to many make hasty generalizations based on their own subjective experiences (I think that's called the availibity heuristic in English, looks like it on Wikipedia). Everybody is prone to doing it, me included. I'm not saying that I'm entirely in the camp of the theorycrafters like my discussion with Bajong would indicate, but rather that the best way to constructive discuss unbalances, and aid the developers, is making use of both well-documented anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence. After all, as Frogboy said, there are a lot of factors that just have to be played to be seen in games. Finally, this rhetoric related explanation of anecdotal evidence captures my point fairly well (in case I didn't - I'm tired):

Your post is false, simply because I am a 70% Vasari player, 28% TEC player, and 2% Advent player, thus I'v used RA, and several times.

On to Vanechka's post, your entire post about me is based upon a website that can be changed by ANY person to say ANY thing, I looked up the definition for Anecdotal Evidence on Websters, that cannot be altered by any random passerby whom feels like it, I also have a handy websters dictionary on my shelf.

It is not, 'cause this was a direct response to
.
Your reading skills lack. I wasn't stating that you hadn't played Vasari, but that we I and other people had played Vasari a lot. I was also suspecting that you had not done enough to actually base your strategy around exploiting the unbalancedness that is RA. Try it?


Also, I don't think discussing all relative percentages of what you played and definition questions and (a misunderstood version of) the lore makes much sense in a gameplay balance thread.

I'd prefer it if you stated why RA was NOT overpowered, who knows, maybe we haven't thought of something...?