Balancing around 1x1 hasn't work

It’s funny, what he was saying Cuman is not bad in 1v1 Arabia, but pretty good in Arena.

I pointed out that feu TC advantage isn’t really that good at all in Arena as all, people usually castle drop cuman, wont let them full boom, just like Arabia doing FC rush to Cuman.
and now you said it’s totally separate issue.

If someone saying Cuman is good in 1v1 Arabia, So by your logic, you will agree because the Fedural age TC and opponent FC rush is sperate issue?
completely ignore Cumans will be punished by opponennts FC rush?
If this is your logic, then it’s fine, I won’t keep argue with you.

contradicted to what you have said, conversation end.

I have to agree that the balancing has been pretty awful. I would scrap everything, go back to pre-DE balance and then fix up any of the well known issues from that balance without doing the weird swings in overpowered nerfs and buffs.

The problem with Korean civ btw was just that they didn’t know what to do with it. They were a good tower rush civ pre-DE and after that they just left the civ in a not very usable state. So they’ve gone a full circle of 20 years and put the WW cost back to what is was in AoC :smiley: balance lvl >9000

I also don’t think the devs will fix Burmese anytime soon because they don’t know how to without just reinstating their previous strengths.

what we all need to take into account is that for a civ to be balanced/OP/underwelming, it comes very close.
The devs do a small change at the time and take quite some time to see if it is good enough or needs more work. Furthermore, a lot of civs needed al lot of work if you compare it to pre DE times. The majority of civ is quite balanced now and bc of that, we have become more nitpicking on balance.
What also doesnt help is introducing two new civs and fully missing the plank on especially there UT’s.
I agree that TGs dont seem a high priority for the devs, but change does happen. We have come a long way from the HD and voobly times and the game and balance are in the best spot ever.

The game is steadily getting better but the pace at which it happens is a bit sad. I dont know the exact numbers on how manny ppl are currently working on the game but i dont think its much. So we just have to be pacient, keep giving respectfull feedback and most of all, just enjoy the game.

1 Like

Fist of all, that is your research or what? To get an impression I just quecked ongoing ranked matches and there was roughly 350 1v1 games vs. 150 team games. So assuming there is somewhat equal distribution between 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 (which kind of seemed to be the case when I skimmed trough) you’d have around 700 people in ranked playing 1v1 against 900 playing tg. This favor indeed tgs but it’s not even close to 3x times more people in tgs. This much just for perspective.

What a bold claim11 Let me give you some counter arguments:

Tg mechanics basically exploit one trick civs. That’s why civs such as franks, britons or mayans are so dominant here. You see similar unit compositions and trash units only become a factor in late game. So a major part of the game is mostly irrelevant in tgs. This alone makes claiming tgs are essence of aoe very problematic imo.

You refer to the broader players. That’s certainly an important point. But besides the fact that at least in ranked your calculation of 1v1 vs. tgs player doesn’t seem correct the community also consists of more. You mention streamers and viewers. This is what has been driving the game since DE release and that’s why the player base has been growing a lot. I’m not saying 1v1 pro tourneys are the essence of the game. Still, if that part dies the whole game will probably die soon after. So keeping this as a reference point for balance to keep as many people interested is a good decision imo.

Yeah but that’s mostly because people enjoy these strats on arena. Arena tg is a super weird thing tbh and the wackiest of all strats can work. That’s why you rarely see arena in tgs tournaments. Starting to balance UU because of 2 castle strats on arena would be a terrible idea. I mean sure double castle arambai was annoying but in terms of balance that wasn’t really necessary. Arambai hasn’t been op (at least in recent times in DE, they were only before the nerfs in wk) with exception of that one single setting (arena tgs).

It’s totally stoppable in 1v1. People just need to learn how to react properly. Open monks, get the relics (you will quite some time in castle before korean player reaches it, get’s 2 castles and WW in sufficient numbers and with bodkin) boom a bit and then make skirms (best to stop vil production at that point to get the upgrades, you’ll be miles ahead in eco anyways). Monks and skirms holds WW back for quite some time until you can make a castle yourself. Also mixing in rams can be good. If Korean player goes imp they need to stop making army while defensive player can make army and also work up their way to imp or just go all-in castle to overwhelm with sheer numbers.

Wait you mean forward tower or castle? That’s really not the way to stop cumans on arena unless they have all their res forward. Fc forward castle takes way too much time until pressure is in. By the time castle is up cumans are on the way to castle age themselves. Either you go fc forward siege or you go fc boom yourself (civs like khmer and malay can kind of keep up with cumans).

Just saying that because you imply people to be not knowledgable while giving bad information yourself. Btw, yes Turks is one of the best civs for 1v1 arena. There is indeed very few civs that aren’t well balanced for 1v1 when considering different map types.

1 Like

For Turkey, I didnt even orginially said it’s weak in Arena.
I just said it’s not a 1v1 civ as I am always playing Arabia. DO NOT hijack my words.

btw, when you have time, could you pratice to me how to counter it?
I would love to 1v1 with you and see how you do that and learn from it.

It’s not a 1v1 civ because you don’t play maps where they are good on? That’s not hijacking your words that just telling you your argument doesn’t make a lot of sense. They are great on any closed map and also they are pretty decent on arabia as well after the buff. Not the best but totally fine civ. Camel vs knights, light cav vs archers and the option to make jannis. Then great late game with ca, hussar and bbc. Only bad when golds runs out.

TBH, my argument doesnt make lots of sense?

in 1v1 elo, most of the map played is Arabia as I claimed Turkey is not that good in 1v1 doesnt make any sense to you because you think that it should be considered in Arena or closed map only?
Does it make sense to you?

but anyway, I didnt even against the idea of Turkey is good in closed map or Arena.
and Infact, it’s supporting my original statement that every different civs shining in its specific situation.

So do 1v1 … in both 1v1 and tg 90% of the times I see the same 4-5 civs picked. I guess besides balance, this is also fault of one map (Arabia) getting a massive over representation in the game. But the OP is right that the balance of the game is just somehow off. I wouldn’t necessarily say broken, but I definitely see much less variety of strategies being used/viable than ever before.

1 Like

4-5 in 1v1’s is quite low. Cernatily in TG you see more the same civs but in 1v1’s about 2/3 are quite viable, with ofc some better some worse but almost never a civ win

Unfortunately that is the experience. It is clear when someone go random, because then, and only then do you see the civs that no one actually would pick…

i went over to my last games and from the last 9 games (so 18 possible civs) i played against and with 12 different. I feel thats not too bad.
There are some civ which are not really viable in 1v1 arabia but id say that around 30/37 are viable

I’d say that’s true as long as you don’t face the top tier civs…

At higher lvl chineese are too good and at lower franks. On hybrid liths and in EW vikings but further i dont see what civs are too good or in need of a nerf

1v1 Arabia is the most competative setting. It is not more then logical then having the main balance focus on these settings. Everything else is on the second plan. As long as something isnt really broken, it is fine. The devs already change some TG related stuff. So the Mayan + Sarancens boni dont result and killing buildings with archers any more. Also Arambai was nerfed due to its performance in TGs. So saying that TGs are completely ignored is completely false. They devs also look into TG performances in balance changes.

3 Likes

Go back and read again, arambai was nerfed 5 years after a little too late, imperial camel took 6 long years, that is unacceptable, you can tell day 1 an unit is broken, you can check players stats usage and whatever brings you data to verify it, the fact that it took so many years to correct balance just demonstrates how the devs have different priorities.

Look they fixed khmer eles right? the answer is no, they nerfed all battle elephant line cause of a simple civ bad design, they did the same with camel line, yes imperial camel was even superior 6 years ago, instead of nerfing the unit they nerfed all camel line increasing the halb anticamel bonus cause of a silly unit design, see the problem now? they are the people in charge their work should be better.

I am not even wasting my time replying the other guy, there are more team games running than 1x1 and the players play more team games overall, that is enough to focus balancing into those settings, i play 1x1 arabia and i enjoy to watch it but from 10 games i play only 2 of them would be 1x1, that is the difference, i have to deal most of my time with those balance mistakes and sadly adapt to it and be just another player using the broken civs or units in order to win.

I never said team games are completely ignored but they are partially attended and like i said balancing around team games isn’t even complicated, there is plenty data in this 21 years old game to already identify what causes issues in team games and that has always been the stacking bonuses, given their decision with the MM and forced pick civ, we don’t have other options but to pick the same civs over and over.

This

OK then lets nerf all civs in a way that they are just as one trick pony and boring as Turks or Burmese.

as long as you get to see the map & pick your position before choosing your civ, every civ that is too good at 1 thing should be nerfed

it doesn’t matter if they aren’t overpowered on 1v1 arabia because the 1v1 arabia players can just pick one of the other 40 civs in the game.

I think Turks are a slightly avonve average arabia civ.
They have a small eco bonus and the extra PA on light cav really helps them. They struggle a bit with arbs in imp but it feels more like a big weakness than an auti loss in imp