Knights are too strong

[herik]

Hmm just wondering omega, did the knights get a buff in aoc? Because I went cav vs knights, my 4 cav lost against 4 knights (3fll), no morale including just a normal kill for kill, knights don't seem this way on eec, so wtf, Anyway would you be able to put knights back to normal if they are indeed buffed, also put pt's back, there easy to counter idk why u nerfed them, make Persians (they have conversion resistance for any1 new reading this.) pt's lost, gg.
Well anyway, knights are too strong for a fair game, they beat everything in aoc.

[BigRon]

they look alright too me, cav archers are just not made to attack from close distance and once the knight rams his long pike into their ass its over anyway

[Arntzen]

meh, idno either herik. Knight's should be strong. If I had to choose I'd give a 100% fair balance between knight/sword/ca, and the fact is right now u can only use them in 3v3 or 4v4 (or 1v1 against sword rushers).

PT's I cud not care less about tbh. If they get more usable I'd just be pissed if a teammate went for "static defense" then an actual army. It just makes the game boring cuz the enemy has to use trebs (if the PT-guy actually got some CA/Longbow/Trebs/Balista). So basically a treb-war....

[Texas Ranger]

Pts are completely retarded. It has nothing to do with their strength, they're just no fun to be playing with. Same with cloaking or flaming arrows or other obnoxious, gimmicky powers that completely dictate the flow of the game.

Once a knight player booms then yes they're incredibly hard to kill with Richard and Zeus. There really is no effective counter other than doubling that player. OTOH, knights have a very weak early game. They are expensive and can't attack early on because towers rape them. They don't have much survivability until Richard comes in the picture. The problem really comes in a 4v4 large when they are able to boom, usually due to a skill difference on their side of the map. A sword/ca combo should be able to kill the wing before the knight booms completely, but it's pretty rare to have a game filled with 8 good players so knights tend to work out very well.

You have to simply be better than your opponents to make knights work in a 2v2 or 3v3. 1v1 & 4v4 is all they're good for.

[Omega]

Knights didn't get a buff.

Priest Towers got a nerf due to pre. They're trashier than they were in mid beforehand, but it's not like that matters. They were trash before, and now they're just slightly trashier trash. They still fill the same role of annoying everyone in the game, including your own team, and causing an auto-loss for your team if everyone is of equal skill and not complete noobs.

[herik]

Knights, are easy to boom, but they are stupidly strong, and lol, pt's are banned in pre anyway , and i've had some pretty good games with pts, especially since theres not much skill atm, its fun to troll and still win.

[Arntzen]

Knights, are easy to boom, but they are stupidly strong

As Omega said, they aren't buffed.

[ben55]

i'd say 2v2 medium map knights are very strong. small id agree they suck.

as for 4v4 they're annoying, but they are very kill-able with longbow mass and early ca harass.

[taco]

if ur ca lost to knights u deserve to lose herik. means u sat there and didnt move or split them at all.
knights suck untill pop is an issue. i wouldnt use knights in a 1
v1 or 2v2 because they are so easily countered if you have played mid dm you would know there are quite a few ways in the late game to counter them. ca/sword. treb/sword, my personal favorite is ca/treb mid game, it can really hurt your knights players boom i think its 1 attack on trebs and
they can 1 hit bali without morale. deny there stone patch and its gg.