Except the quote I responded to was talking about just flat nerfing them period.
No the problem is so many people are thinking about nerfing knights and archers without thinking about the other ramifications.
Look at steppe lancers atm. Most people consider them useless. Think about how easy it would be to do that same thing to knights. Especially with the recent buff to the militia line.
So those who want to nerf knights and archers i want to see how they plan on nerfing them without trashing the units.
It’s about more rgen just what needs ro be done to the units though. You nerf knights enough to change up thr meta but now you have to make sure they stay relevant, especially with recent changes because for example you could easily make berserks become a very problematic unit for cav civs to deal with due to all the recent buffs they got.
Or teuton infantry suddenly becomes an issue for melee civs.
Or With archwr nerfs suddenly malian infantry becomes a real issue in castle age for civs that rely on archers.
So I’m asking that these things be considered by those so ready ro knock down knights and archers.
Or imagine this whole infantry uu at barracks. How do you handle goths flooding huskarls in early castle age?
Imagine lithuanians having early castle age leitis against a civ like Franks or teutons.
And I gave you an example. You actually tried to invalidate by that’s not enough to brake the archer vs. knight meta.
So what do you want? Break the archer vs knight meta in 1v1s or not?
Currently you argue in both directions, which is obscure to say the least.
I’m against uslews nerfs. Reducing bonus damage isn’t going to do anything and would be a waste of time because in a month people will just be back asking for more.
Just bring out real, but reasonable changes to critique and don’t waste time with stuff that won’t even get the job done.
On the otger hand don’t overdo it either. Like I said. Be reasonable. We don’t need another steppe lancer style nerf of making them useless.
But we also don’t need months of Itty bitty xhanges that do nothing (also see steppe lancers)
So you are playing the deflection game. Like the politicians.
“If we do anything we can to stop the global warming it’s not enough. The other need to do it also. So we better don’t do it.”
Yeah, this is a nice way to stop any improvement in it’s roots.
No. I’m just against wasting years to get fixed what you all have spent a year complaining about.
Cut to the heart of the matter and don’t tip toe to the finish line.
But don’t use a nuke either.
Or do you really want them taking as long to fix this issue as they are to fix franks?
You want to fix the stale meta? Go ahead. But actually fix it. Don’t aim to fix it by 100 changes over 2 years. Or do you really want to keep the same Meta you constantly complain about for yhe next couple years while you try dumb stuff like reducing archer bonus damage and waiting to see what everyone knows? That it won’t fix anythinh.
I never said “yeah that will make it, let’s do it” or something like this.
I said accurately that it can be part of a solution but won’t be enough to break the stale TG meta.
But it CAN BE PART OF A SOLUTION. As it doesn’t interferes too much with 1v1 gameplay.
And thus what I’m saying is stop with the
“Well let’s start with this small minor change and then come back in a month”.
And go more with something like
“We’re going to reduce bonus damage and then on top of that we’re going to do this and this.”
People have been complaining about the meta for a year. How many are going to stick arounf if you take a year more to fix what they’ve been calling stale for so long already?
Propose real changes that you actually th8nk will have a real impact on yhe meta. Period.
If I had an easy solution for the problem, I would have gone ahead and propsed it. But it is a complex problem that needs several changes. This thread is meant to collect ideas that then should be brought together to form a solution.
Ofc it’s impossible that a single idea “solves” it. If you argue against each individual Idea with that “argument”, you try to only deflect and interfere with the process.
Only you say that.
This thread is about collecting ideas, not about proposing a single easy “solution”.
You don’t determine what is allowed in this forum. I made this thread to allow people to bring ideas in that can be PART of a solution that then can be brought together. The more creative ideas we collect here and don’t simply deflect in the way you do it, the more chances we have to get to a solution.
And if you don’t want to participate in that process you are free to stay away.
And if you want what you want then go for real changes.
Don’t just accept small minor stuff. For all you complain about the meta stop pushing minor changes and do something that’s actually impactful.
Doing half a job like the proposals I’ve seen in this thread will not get you to the destination you want.
Again look at how long rhey have been trying to fix franks.
Is that what you want for team game meta?
The fact rhat you acknowledge that it’s going to take a few changes means you are already on the right track. Stop accepting half measures and put together a real proposal.
Stop putting forth small, inconsequential changes like they are real steps forward and look for real answers.
I do so by trying to encourage as many people as possible to propose things. No matter how stupid, not enough or whatever they may look at first glance. It’s better to have them spoken out, you never know if maybe somebody just doesn’t has the courage to propose one imortant part of the puzzle.
We need ideas, without the Ideas we can’t make proposals. It’s that easy. You can’t just skip that step.
The true story is, more than 95 % of all ideas are bs. But you don’t know before hand which 5 % are good. If you turn down a creative person 10 times because all his 10 ideas are bs he may not have the courage to propose the 11th idea that may change the world for good.
So far we had some nice Ideas that can be part of a solution:
A) Make UUs more accessible (not all)
B) Reduce bonus damage of archers vs spears (or in general make the counter units more viable)
C) map diversity/changes to make more unique strats viable
D) remove pos pick (questionable - has advantages but also disadvantages - there are also a few civs that are good at both positions that then can be OP)
Crossbow upgrade needs to be more expensive. Several pro players have already been calling for this for some time now. And knights could be slightly easier for monks to convert, with monks also given a bit more HP to encourage more monastery defence. And maybe add some gold cost onto the husbandry upgrade.
this just slows down the crossbow power spike in early castle age, and frankly, not by that much, unless you plan to give the crossbow upgrade an obscene cost, which would require then increasing the cost of the arbalest upgrade. it isn’t going to do anything to stop how strong crossbows are overall.
that’s why pros call for nerfing the xbow cost. because xbows upgrade is just so early and easy and cheap that you can get it + bodkin with ease + an eco upgrade upgrade or two all the second you hit castle age. by making it more expensive you make it a bit harder to afford all that.
But it won’t have any real impact in team games where you continue to see Xbows be the absolute dominant unit to keep alive.
so you nerf knights harder then you nerf xbows, even though xbows are the unit that is the dominant part of the meta, especially in team games. but frankly this won’t do anything about knights in team games, as monks would just get picked off by the xbows of the other team.
i didn’t suggest leaving knights alone while nerfing xbows harder.
in team games the goal is to keep the xbows alive and you use knights mainly as a meat shield for them. if the goal is to shift the meta in team games both need to be nerfed but xbows are the one that is the core of the issue.
even in 1v1 we are seeing more and more situations where even cav civs are using xbows instead of going knights. Is it incredibly common? no.
this is why pros are suggesting nerfing the xbow upgrade cost - it gives too big of a power spike to easily. especially when you can start making xbows in feudal age.
If the goal is to see the meta shift both need to be nerfed, but the xbow is the real power behind it.
as for the idea of giving pikeman pierce armor helping, that won’t. the militia line has 1 base pierce armor and takes zero bonus damage from archers and we don’t even see them either.
I think if we want to nerf archers, we should fokus on siege being more effective against them.
That’s where the punctus cnactus of pro play currently is. The pros just have become too good at evading siege shots.
I know that there are also some players at lower elo who can do that but they often lack on macro skills in compensation.
Archers aren’t OP on most elos, it’s only like from about 1800 elo where archer civs actually can compete with the top knight civs.
How do you propose they should be nerfed then? Because at the moment it feels like you’re just poo-pooing everyone’s ideas without offering any alternatives.