RTS games have always had steep learning curves. you think beginners don’t have to learn how stuff works in Civilization? Starcraft? Warcraft? etc. it happens everywhere. you learn as you go and you learn from your mistakes.
1 Like
except the game has never been designed that way. ever. and no, the game does not have to adjust to your whims. there is a wide fanbase out there and from what i can see, only a small group is unhappy with the game not adopting your idea of Unit Balance over Civ Balance.
show me a single RTS that holds your hand to this degree. no such RTS exists. heck i can’t think of a single multiplayer or strategy game in general where you don’t have to learn as you go and get better along the way.
IF in an RPG i stack my group with 2 tanks, 2 healers/supports, and 1 damage dealer will i succeed? probably?
would i be better with a different composition? most likely. will i get better the more i play and experiment and learn? absolutely.
AoE2 has the same theme. there is no universal answer to everything. i could try rushing to imperial age but if my opponent kills me before i get their i can learn from that.
2 Likes
Man please stop seriously with these overreacting posts, there so many complaints and rants that I even don’t understand that what you try to say, yes some of your POV can be ok but you literally overreacts some unnecesary things like the Leitis and the dear Elephant Archer, and you make a lot of posts with low sense dude…calm down (even your ban isn’t that enough…).
Pro Players have a Discord where they can discuss safely their POVs to balance the game, and believe me they are doing a good job at balancing the game.
4 Likes
Some (like half) of the UUs are simply traditionally weak and/or underpowered. These are overdone by generic options for each of: Affordability and Effectiveness.
Others (fewer) are traditionally very strong (some even Overpowered) UUs, even more than one would expect, and are used 100% of the time for that civ.
This HUGE discrepancy is not a good thing to have between UUs. I say not to nerf those UUs which are used 100% of the time, I say make the Underpowered UUs viable at the very least.
Tradition should not be the reason why some UUs are super strong, while other similar looking UUs are just weak and even utter trash, and never used.
But it is still quite slow. Each update has very minor and/or very few changes.
And they have focused on balancing civilizations till now, buffing/nerfing Unit-lines is the task that remains, apart from Pathing. There are atleast 21 unit-lines in need of balancing to see daylight in actual gameplay.
Like FU HCs actually being worse vs Infantry than FU Arbs even though they are advertised as the ultimate Infantry counter after Catas/Jags/TKs.
The three of which, BTW are also not viable being far far less affordable to ALL generic alternatives. And hence less effective too.
in your opinion you mean. it isn’t true though.
and frankly, despite your attempts, the tarkan for example, is not supposed to be compared to a knight. both clearly have different jobs. the knight is a generalist while the tarkan is more adept at destroying buildings and raiding with its insane pierce armor.
and those civs tend to be built around those UU carrying the civ and that’s pretty much the only option they have.
the problem is you have a different idea of what is viable then most people. tarkans are very viable. just not where and in the way you want them to be.
first of all tradition clearly doesn’t play into it. Lithuanians UU got buffed. the EA got buffed. they buff civs that need help. if they can do so by buffing their UU why not? furthermore Mayans have seen their UU nerfed, so clearly Tradition means nothing.
on the other hand, some civs are in such a strong place it would be absurd to make their UU better, because it would negatively impact the balance of the game.
this whole “every unique unit should be viable” is only in your opinion, clearly the game design disagrees with you, and has disagreed with you, for it’s entire duration.
just because a civ has a “Weak unique unit” doesn’t mean anything.
Malians have a weak unique unit. they are still a good civ.
Huns have a unique unit that doesn’t see much use except in niche situations. they are still an excellent civilization.
Teutons have a unique unit that you believe has no use. they are also a very strong civilization.
Lithuanians have a Unique Units that get a lot of flack, but the civ is entirely lackluster at the highest levels of play.
the only tradition at play is that some civs are clearly designed around their UU being used extensively, or having a strong UU, and others are not.
2 Likes
Ofcourse it got buffed. You thought I deny that?
But that doesn’t mean it actually became viable.
The people have spoken MatCauthon. The truth is out…
150 people poll means nothing.
viper actually thinks the unit is pretty solid.
the thing literally chewed threw malian pikes who have insane pierce armor.
150 people out of 2 million people playing the game (with only steam sales). try again. 150 PEOPLE is .0075% of the population of the game.
not even 1 out of 100,000 people who play the game got polled. congratulations. and only 25 people voted for it as the weakest unique unit.
so congratulations parthnan. 25 people (26 with you) think the Elephant Archer is the weakest Unique Unit in the game. out of over 2 million people.
3 Likes
He used it in two game on one stream once, and said “they might be OK”
Then there’s Hera, Nili, DauT etc who still make fun of this unit and all of them never ever use it, including Viper.
Same story for Mamelukes, Cataphracts, EAs, GCs, Condos, Gbetos, Samurais, TKs, Ballista Eles, Shotels, Orjan Guns, Turtle Ships, Genitours, Karambits, WEs, HCs, Longswords, Flaming Camels and Missionaries
I never even voted, joke’s on you.
oh look, @parthnan is twisting the truth again. he used it in multiple games in a row and has used it since.
not twice.
furthermore he said and using exact quotes here…
“Seems not to shabby”, “Very impressed by how they performed there”, “i have to say i’m really impressed” “they seem really solid” “i’m really starting to like this unit boys” “right now it feels like they really have a place in the game for late game Indians”
far cry from “They might be okay”.
where’s your source on all these units being made fun of by them since? i want actual sources.
and viper has used it since. sorry you don’t get to lie.
i know you didn’t vote. 25 people voted it worse.
25 people. you make 26. out of 2 million. a poll with a sample size that small would be considered laughable and discarded as not conclusive.
1 Like
Then show me a better poll.
As of now with this poll it is clear that the next worst UU has but a PUNY 1/3rd the votes that the Elephant Archer has managed to amass in the only UU competition that it can compete in.
At being the WORST.
nah. you’re the one who wants the data and wants to brag about a poll with only 150 people participating. i’m merely discrediting it.
a poll that samples less then 1 in 100,000 people is not adequate sample size to prove anything.
Then show me a poll with more people.
If you cannot find any, then there is no reason to overturn the results of this poll for the Worst Unique Unit in the game. And hence there is no reason to dismiss my arguments which I was making from the very beginning. Even from the moment EAs were buffed.
Especially because of the HUGE difference between number one(EAs) and ALL THE REST.
you are the one who wants to prove something. you get out there and do the work. a sample size of 144 out of more then 2 million is not valid for statistical analysis.
by the way you said this
which is flat out false and another twist of the truth.
the EA got 25 votes.
the Karambit got 14 votes. that’s not 1/3.
stop twisting the truth parthnan.
1 Like
isn’t 32% more than thrice of 10%?
#NiliMath??
Who is twisting the truth again?
You shouldn’t be allowed to put constant allegations on others like this
you said votes, not percentage.
VOTES. you said votes. not percentage parthnan.
is that poll going to be unbiased? no. it isn’t. because most the people on these forums aren’t the ones who are okay with the game. so you aren’t getting a good sample of the overall community.
so go conduct an unbiased survey first. post it in game for everyone to participate.
dang i see now. my screen isn’t showing all of the data. either way. the sample size is small and statistically irrelevant, and not unbiased at all. and still does nothing to negate the fact that the game has never revolved around unit balance. nice job trying to ignore the rest of my statement though.
which still all applies.
ill wait for you to provide me sources of pros laughing and making fun of all these units
It is quite valid data as long as the people involved in the survey are randomly selected from around the world.
All polls on here in this forum are slightly biased since internet users are generally from the west. Countries like china aren’t representing their opinions on a fair scale.
1 Like
there isn’t anything random though. its the forum people. people who have no issues with the game largely avoid the forums. it is a heavily biased poll.
i agree the poll is very biased. i think a poll on the main game lobby would be better and get more results. or one posted by the devs.
either way. this game has literally never put unit balance as a core of design, and i want to see this mythical source of all the pros laughing at all the units parthnan apparently has.
the fact is though, that he seems to think some unique units are similar to generalists when they clearly aren’t.
the tarkan is not a substitute knight.
the elephant archer is no where close to a substitute cav archer.
the karambit is not a substitute champion, nor is the shotel warrior.
I am just saying that there is no need to fight over this since Polls are a thing that this forum offers. It’s upto you whether you want to believe it’s result or not.
1 Like