Balancing around 1x1 hasn't work

Hello i am making this thread to make some clarifications about balancing and why the devs have been doing things wrong, but is not only them it is also the forums user who are pushing and pushing with more balances changes that are unnecessary and could have a negative impact in most users.

The first lie or mistake i have been reading is that balancing should be based on 1x1 and only, well if you happen to browse the average profile of an aoe2 player he has x3 more games played on team games than his 1x1 games, in some cases there are profiles with players that don’t have any 1x1 at all, this is not new, this has been a tendency since vanilla release, we can even say that the multiplayer(tg) is the essence of aoe2, not everyone enjoys the 1x1 like they enjoy team games and the obvious reasoning is that balancing should be towards the majority of your users, making team games the most important aspect of the game, 1x1 is what twitch users sees and pro players makes profits of it, but enough with that they are not a majority, bad balance changes or design have more impact on team games, maybe you forgot it but imperial camel and arambai were broken for many years with not a single word or action from any dev, while lets say arbalest for indians just lasted like 5 months until it was fixed.

There is just too much attention in the 1x1 scene for less than 200 pro players, several common balance experts around this forum are all the talking about those players, their stats in tournaments, etc, to me they are more like specs or viewers of the game rather than active players, cause they are always talking about those players instead of their own experiences or what is more common right now, like the 2 castles War Wagon rush which is more complicated to deal with than the previous arambai meme, arambai was weak vs arrows and low hp, but ww has more endurance and now free armor, given its high attack it also melts buildings down, this issues was introduced cause users in forums were very vocal about how bad koreans were in their 1x1 arabia stats, well thank you guys, korean meme WW strat is now seen in 8/10 walled/fc maps, but the devs have also the fault, they have been focusing too much in that utopia called 51% winning rate on all civs based on arabia.

Burgundians are now the strongest civ when it comes to boom, yes they are better than vikings, but they have paladin, costillier, BBC, HC, halbs, hussars,cavaliers on castle age and the most obnoxious strat in the game that is now a thing just like the ww rush, yes i am talking about the 200 flemish militia rush, it affects both team games and 1x1 but it will be more abused on team games cause they can just ask for some food to remake their economy, making the flemish rev a total broken option, the design on this civ is just wrong.

The devs haven’t seen or they don’t want to see, that britons are being used in 97% of all team games, while the civ is not broken for 1x1, their team bonus stacks badly with other archer civs, i mean, this could have been fixed a year ago, just by changing their team bonus to a civ bonus and giving them a harmless team bonus like the inca team bonus, but nothing has been done, in fact i guess they are not even planning something about it, instead they just pinned a topic about inca team bonus, their balance priorities are not always on what the game needs.

I can continue all day talking about bad balance changes or balance design, like battle elephants, mamelukes,etc, that turned the units into a waste of resources or very very situational units, but that is not the intention.

While balancing has been a topic based in 1x1, they have been ignoring team games for too long, balance should be done thinking in both, i know tournaments and pro players/caster streams have more impact cause they are public icons, but the majority of the total players have to deal for years with balance issues that are not getting the same attention.

Balancing on team games is really not that complicated, you just need to decrease stacking bonus and boom civs powers pikes, for example during the korean balance rework, they gave them 20% cheap wood units which affected WW, later on they gave them another stacking bonus, the free armor which created the conditions to what we have now, this could have been predicted and adjusted the ww price in the same patch they gave them the free armor, but the devs were not thinking in the consequences, the same was about arambai having such high DPS with a civ that gets free wood upgrades but well that lasted for 4-5 long years, i have witnessed all those balance corruptions for years and i don’t see it stopping any time soon. In 2016 one of the biggest aoe events and finals, lierey vs viper, the decider game was burmese vs malians, everyone thought lierey made a mistake going for arbalest, but the thing was that he had no other options to stop arambais, if arambai wouldn’t have been that powerful back then, lierey would have won and the game history would be different, so yeah the bad balance unit design was reflected in that game and can anybody tell me when did they nerf arambai?

But i have seen that the devs or the guys in charge are not the same than before, the guy that just changed death match for empire wars, that is a good sign that the priorities could be changed and maybe emend the path and give us more solid balance changes rather than balance testing patches that can last several years before fixing them.


agree on the Korean uu, now I have tried 2 or 3 games in arena 1v1 with double castle stargegy (I haven’t really use Korean before)
it’s unstoppable, they can easily kill the stone wall, the knights even skirms, I can’t think of anything to counter so far, maybe monk, but still I dropped the 3rd castle and keep attacking the econ, soon or later I got my win games. It’s pretty unbalance civ. I even beated the Burgundians pretty easily even though they are super OP now.

I dont think the dev give a xxxx on TG at all.
When everyone yelling the TG issues: ALT F4, map picking, smurfs, unbalanced team, super high win rate of the premade.
Did they respond or do anything? no.

But anyway, for my perspective this game can’t tell as Definite edition at all.
Sure it’s the best version in the AOE2 history so far, however, it’s 2021 now, the interface, the guild system, the elo system, even the player stat or profile stuffs, it’s just far behind the modern online games.
I wish they can change the operation like LOL. They should have made the game not allowing people to change the mod, instead to selling it as an items, otherwise, they just dont have enought money to input the manpower to keep input and change things.

1 Like

I can agree with some things like Burgundians, but regarding Koreans they have benn always a wtf design without any eco bonus yet such limited tech tree in Imperial age, the WW yes sadly is taking the empty left by Arambai, but it can be fixed sooner or later, but they need something to be good at 1v1 that’s sure.

And TG won’t be balanced ever, you nerf Britons, other civ will take their place quickly, same for Franks and all other Paladin civs, a civ like Aztecs can be OP with Celts, Goths and Briotns allies, Portuguese as well with Bulgarians, Lithuanians and Malians, TGs won’t be equal to anyone ever, someone said that position picking is perhaps the biggest factor here for TGs. (Is the circlejerk that I always talked about)

And all Balance changes are mostly towards 1v1 because most high level players use that settings.

And to add, Arambai was nerfed (ppffff is still utterly silly and broken imo), Imerial Camel was nerfed and Khmer were nerfed so…

No, some civs are fated not good in 1v1, besides, I don’t think Korean is bad in econ.
they got stone work faster, they got tower upgrade.
if you need every civ to be good at 1v1, how about cumans? how about Turkey?

Cumans second TC at feudal is bad for arabai but really good at closed maps, Turks are extremely powerul in 1v1 arena (Jannisaries, Fast Imp), and that’s why I argue they don’t need major changes currently, especially Turks with the last buff.

Ask to any 1.8-2k level player (like Lavie_Head), Koreans aren’t effective.

in arena, no one will let cuman doing full boom without tower or castyle drop.
I wonder what’s your 1v1 elo?
I might be fool to not able to see the advantages if I am far lower than yours.

Cumans aren’t top pick arena civ cause of what 11?

but also, as you have already raised, some civ good at arena but not arabia.
It’s also very logical some civs not good at 1v1 but good in TG or some specific maps.
that’s the main issue how the civ shining on its specific way.

The why Khmer were buffed despite even pros like Viper were vocal that the civ was fine pre buff??
Teutons were incredibly underplayed still somewhat strong at closed maps, thanks by those buffs both civs are right now worthy picks for most players.

to be honest I dont really get what you are talking about.

when we talking about Korean is “too” op in closed map.
you said they need to be good in 1v1, but my question is why they need to be good in 1v1?
I raised out a point that civs are good in specific scene or specific map, but shouldnt be too powerful otherwise it’s just unbalanced to play. and now the issue Korean is really too good in Arena.

are you the top player (within top 1000 in 1v1 ranking) ? or just the 1300 to 1500 elo guys watching steam and thinking they know everything about the games? I am really curious

This means you should focus on single player campaigns instead of team games. If you could see the stats for that it would far out weight the tg or 1v1 games.


Arambai, Khmer and Indians were all changed/nerfed because of TG. Latest Frank nerf is also mostly a TG nerf. So it can’t hurt to ask ig.

position-picking will never be balanced

the only way to get people to play civs is to make them stronger than whatever is the best civ for a given situation. that is not sustainable. it is actually insane.

1 Like

It would be correct to mention single player only if balance was applicable to games against the AI or campaigns, but it isn’t. The AI legit dies to FC ele archers, so the standards are pretty low in that regard, and the campaigns can be completely separated from balance since you can use triggers to change unit stats and available techs. For official campaigns, they have to keep the civ as is to showcase it but tweaking the difficulty to fit any nerf/buffs shoudn’t be too hard either.

He said cuman’s feudal TC has a niche in arena because the map is closed and fortified.
Castle drops have nothing to do with a feudal TC.

did u read the conversation before u reply?

we were talking about 1v1 in close map

Yes, and you need to read my post again. I replied based on what you said about arena.

@FurtherLime7936 told you that the cuman feudal TC was bad for arabia, but good in closed maps like arena. A-RE-NA. But you replied: “iN ArEnA, nO oNe WiLl lEt cUmAn DoInG FuLl Bo0m WitH0uT tOwEr Or CaStLe Dr0p”.

That has nothing to do with the point he was making.
You CAN build a second TC in feudal as cuman in arena. Heck, even if your opponent tower rushes you. If you succeed or fail because of those towers, it’s an entire different matter.

1 Like

That reply was to put in perspective that he was claiming that team games were the main play for most players and why it should be used as the balance point. I was just pointing out that campaign and ai matches are the dominant use of the game so by that logic you should balance the game