Well that’s the mechanics from which it comes…if the enemy is surpassing you, you can activate that technology for the only time and be able to turn the game in exchange for sacrificing your entire economy, if it goes well you win the game, and if not, you lose it irremediably, it is simply a matter of cost-benefit…last that make it a little more expensive, but not take it out of the game…
Yes, but they would lose the grace that makes them unique…
Both, but mainly in the monthly events…
I was never much about going with the flow of what is popular or not xd…
Turks getting instant BBC, relying heavily on gold units is unique. Flemish Revolution is just gimmick trash and it contributes to Bur being an unbalanced civ.
And if they simply ran out of ideas and decided to adapt mechanics of the successive aoe to aoe 2 for their new civs and to reunify the different communities for aoe 4?..It’s a smart move after all…with aoe 3 and aoe 4 they do the same with respect to aoe 2 and I haven’t seen anyone complaining about it…
FR is hated because its concept came from the revolt mechanic in AoE3. I believe most of the players who would hate it also hate AoE3. They are among the most conservative AoE2 players.
I also believe that many people actually don’t mind so much, and some even like it. There are a lot of people playing both two games. Just because of personal preference is not enough to justify the request to remove it.
Also, whether FR is liked or not has nothing to do with the balance of Burgundians as FR has been updated to the point that almost no one will use it. Now they have a good win rate and even got a nerf because of the economic bonus, not the FR.
It needs to be improved, not replaced. It can get some help to make its shortcomings less lethal, such as allowing villagers to be trained faster to speed up economic rejuvenation, the cost fluctuates with the number of villagers and so on. However its essence, sacrificing long-term economic performance for immediate power, should never be removed.
I wonder how unpopular it actually is. I’m not saying it isn’t, but to what extent. Britons are moaned about, franks are moaned about, WW are moaned about, mangudai are hated by opponents.
Most games against Burgundians aren’t affected by it. But we can guess that the ones that are affected, have a percentage of players that don’t like it, and one is more likely to complain about something than mention how much they like it.
For example franks are the most played civ, yet they’re also one of the most complained about. Does this make them net unpopular? Quite the opposite.
Conversely things like hauberk have greater effect on more matches involving sicilians. The tech is more attainable, on a unit that is almost always used.
Similarly we have/had a lot of complaints about shiv (and new civs in general) gimmicks. Yet a lot of people either like or simply accepted the gimmicks. I think it’s difficult to judge the standing of something simply by some complaints about them.
If FM affected more matches (Arabia) we would maybe have a lot more complaints?
Something being nerfed has little to no bearing on whether it should still be nerfed. In the same way something being buffed has nothing to do with it still needing a buff.
HC were buffed once? And then buffed about another 3 times. Does it mean HC are beyond OP now?
Franks were nerfed twice(3 times?) Does it mean they aren’t still the number 1 played civ?
For example they could completely negate the attack bonus Vs trebs(explained in previous threads), and Mongols will still be a (very) strong civ
Well, cause most games don’t go latgeame 11
But basically every game vs burgundians that goes late is affected by it. Cause the thread is real and you can’t just wait for it. You have to prepare a counter strat preemptively (Usually you add a lot of defences). This then allows the Burgundian player then to NOT go for it and kill you with the other tools which burgundians have surprisingly many: Coustillier, Paladin, HC, BBC, long-term eco with Vineyards and Relics…
That’s what makes the button so abnoxious and toxic cause it forces the opponent player to preemptively react to the threat. The powerspike of that is just too big and too steep. I wouldn’t have something against that tech if there was some time to react after it was pressed.
No, I think the reduced bonus damage was more a problem. The thing now with sicilians is ofc that they nerfed them with no compensation whatsoever which makes that civ terrible.
Why they not just added free infantry armor with the same patch? I think this would have been the perfect compensation and finally justify the initial “Infantry civ” branding.
Not even that, that mechanic is similar to the Nordic Ragnarok of AoM, so here you can not excuse yourself with "is that I do not like it because it is a mechanic of aoe 3 "…in fact the Khmer civ advance without the need to build specific buildings as in aoe 3 (except the Asians), and no one complained about that…
Yes, in AoM if someone uses Ragnarok you can still defend yourself with the myological units and in AoE 3 if someone revolutionizes you can still stop him with the falconets or artillery on horseback sweeping his infantry…
I like the mechanic as well, I just don’t think the tech is balanced rn.
This has always struck me as a lazy solution vs. actually trying to make FR balanced first. (I’ve suggested having its cost tied to # of villagers, and making the conversion rate <100%). Lots of people have asked for the tech to be removed, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone propose anything that might replace it.
I also wonder, given the bad state of FR, whether people are really against all “one time gimmicks” as is often claimed, or whether that’s mainly a matter of the current ones being poorly implemented. I don’t really trust people’s ability to be impartial about it until they’ve seen it done well, versus only having imbalanced techs as a reference point. Even having it do something like only affect male villagers would be interesting, as this wouldn’t totally screw the player’s eco, and wouldn’t be as oppressive to face up against.
Same. It may actually be very unpopular, or it may just be one of those things with very vocal detractors who always feel the need to comment on how bad it is every time it’s brought up. I do think a lot of people agree it’s not super well balanced though - that’s often complained about by all, and usually acknowledged by people who like the concept.
That’s kind of an interesting idea, considering some techs already announce after they’ve completed. There’s probably a way to have this tech announced when it’s first clicked (but then it would have to not be cancelable).
Yes, of course… it swings and you’re good to go, but you don’t remove it from the game… you make it more expensive or make it develop slower or warn the enemy player with “danger, your rival is developing Flemish revolution, prepare for defense,”…the rival create crossbowmen by a tube and ready, the problem is over…
Possibly: make the tech time longer. Upon completion, warn opponent. All Vils become immobile and have a wind up time before becoming FM
I would prefer to have UTs viable on more maps in more situations,which would mean making the tech more attainable but less oppressive but:
I keep seeing this recommended. I highly doubt it will happen.
In case people haven’t realised, Devs have gone so far as to add women at arms for aoe4 for the new Malian civ, on top of all the existing pro female implementations. They won’t revert this one
Look for something else like garrionsed Vils , or a specific number of randomly choosen ones.
This is a nerf patch. Other than Bengalis and Dravidians, no one got buff. And even for them, buff is just for the sake of the buff, nothing game changing.
There are civs like Italians, Koreans (who got a direct nerf as well), Malay, Portuguese who were not really fine and still got nerf from the archer upgrade nerf. I really hope next patch will be a buff patch and that will come in November.