IMO, all civ bonus should come after the first TC is built.
I did not look back and couldn’t know if Mayan had the top win rate before they got nerfed. It is questionable to say 1 extra villager of the Mayan is much better than 1 fishing ship of the Persian and 30% extra build speed of the Spanish. I feel that Nomad is an uncompleted map due to all the patches such as treaty and specific civ nerfs. All these changes made Nomad even more differ than the standard maps while they are in the same map pool.
I didn’t see anything about them recently so I couldn’t know. I also don’t know why the devs added EW and DM while these games don’t have a large playerbase.
yeah Nomad got a lot of supporters so it deserves an individual game mode.
1 Like
not to mention, with game mode status, nomad will suddenly have many maps for its map pool and many more maps created for it using both current and tournament maps as well as new maps to be made, which I believe will be better for the nomad community as a whole. imagine mega random specifically designed for nomad.
I would agree that civ bonuses, including berber vill speed and all other civ bonuses should start after the town center is built and then permanently set regardless of if the town center falls. - although how that would react with civs with -resources and + bonuses is another matter.
that being said, for the sake of nomad itself, if it is ‘only a map’ then all civ bonuses must be active from the start of the game, no treaty, no exceptions.
if you want a nerf proper to spanish on nomad, if nomad is just another map, then the nerf must be a nerf on all maps.
spanish faster build speed no longer applies to town centers.
instead the builder speed applies to only fortifications(castles, walls both palisade and stone, and towers)
similarly this would also make want of a change to sicilians, instead of effecting tc build speed their bonus swiches to both towers and castles starting in castle age(to ensure that tower spam in early feudal won’t be a problem, while also giving their serjeants a decent buff in terms of donjon creation and maybe repair)
this also leaves to question berber faster villagers, that would need to be replaced due to early laming - perhaps starting in feudal age rather than right off the bat in dark age, maybe even being buffed to 12-15%.
I would be for both this and giving nomad its own queue or ranked setting within either the ranked queue or ranked lobby systems.
of course, this would also mean buffing spanish in another area to compensate, such as an additional or buff to an existing bonus:
either universities as well as blacksmith upgrades don’t cost gold, : or
ballistics effects both bombard canons and cannon galleons : or
etc
1 Like
I’ve seen this argument before and it never changes. (CIVNAME) is too good in (X) and not good enough in (X) so we must nerf/buff this civ to make it more like the rest of them.
I’m really starting to believe that these people don’t actually like AOE and want to see it burn. How about we make the only legal map Arabia and the only legal Civ Huns. There, problem solved. You go play that game and let the rest of us enjoy play a game which actually has meaningfully different civs, which, by existing, guarantees that there will be better and worse civs in different maps and game modes.
1 Like
Man there will be always civs that are worse on different maps, but that isn’t a justification to have a civ that is terrible on a map that is the most popular but completely oppresive on other less popular but being soo strong that no other civs can’t compete with them and thus making these people away from having fun on that map (Spanish are a clear case, and the same goes to Turks atm, which are OP on arena but not so great on others, and also go and check why Bohemians had to be nerfed too).
And wtf with argument, destroying AOE 11111, if you truly think that way go ahead, revert some buffs like the Italians one made long time ago so they are OP again on water but trash on others.
1 Like
Italians weren’t a clear #1 on water, practically ever. The idea that we can see a weaker overall civ and buff them isn’t indication that they’re trying to ( didn’t know this was somehow a swear word… Uh, what’s another simile for ‘Make everything the same’? ) the game.
If the Spanish bonus is really incredibly oppressive, tweaking the numbers prior to the first TC makes more sense than outright removing it if you’re at all interested in unique civs and bonuses. Fact of the matter is, we’ve seen this song and dance with civs before, and every civ that was considered good on Nomad got utterly dumpstered in Nomad with nerfs as the result of public outcry.
Consider a world where Spanish build their starting TC 15% faster, Chinese start with one of their three extra villagers, and we stop trying to delete unique bonuses in lieu of actively balancing them. Then, maybe you could back off your absurd ad-hominem.
What about removing civ bonuses before the starting TC is built? It would tone down some of the stronger civs starts on nomad without directly nerfing them on other maps.
2 Likes
My dude, English isn’t my first language either. I see that your English isn’t your strong suit. I had to work hard to learn English, and I often come across as way more mean than I actually intend to be. It is hard, I get it. Also, not everyone has the time or the interest to learn English properly. But certain things you are saying makes no sense.
One example of that is when you said I was putting words in your mouth. I wasn’t. I assume what you meant by “Don’t off the topic” is “Don’t dodge/ don’t avoid the topic”. But offing something means killing it. So you are actually saying don’t kill the topic. Is that what you meant?
I am saying that there is no issue with the map. At least for the vast majority of people who play it. You have a personal issue with it, but that is all it is, a personal issue.
Only if Microsoft wants to keep AoE2 alive. Nomad is among the 4 most popular maps. Removing it would hurt the community severely.
What is that an answer to? There are multiple questions in there. I know that you aren’t in the top 100, at least on this account. I know that you aren’t in the top 1000 either. So, are you lying?
Also, I never based my claim on the competitiveness of the game mode. I can freely admit that none of those things are true for me.
Excellent. You have done the correct thing. Not everybody has to enjoy every map. Let people enjoy what they want to enjoy. Stop whining about nomad.
1 Like
I got no issue with the map even though I am bad at Nomad. I just want to discuss it because it is an interesting topic.
Let’s keep talking about the civ balance. There are indeed some OP civs on Nomad. I found there are civs with 60%+ even 70% win rate which means the map is not balanced overall.
The Mayan, Chinese nerfs and treaty are what made Nomad looks weird. Since Nomad is in the same ranked pool with standard maps, we should not make Nomad too different from other maps in nearly every aspect. All the maps should follow the same rules and use the same settings, or every other map can ask for specific changes
On the other hand, the map is either non-competitive or got mechanic issues if the devs can’t balanced the civs on it with universal changes, therefore I suggested to introduce an individual game mode for Nomad maps or temporary remove it from ranked pool till it’s balanced.
Why did you ask if you are not going to believe me anyway ? are you trolling around ?
Okay I forgave you for using this word since you said your English is not good. Both of us are trying to give suggestions so there is no point to blame each other.
I really don’t know if you have ever read any thing of my suggestion because you did not give any opposite opinion. I know you love Nomad and trying to defend it hard, but it is really not my business
1 Like
Alright, I think this is a good direction to go on. The current best site to get AoE2 statistics is aoepulse. So, I looked at the stats for all 3 of the common maps. Arabia, Arena, and Nomad. The last patch doesn’t have enough data, so I ignored that and took all the games from the release of DoI. This is ELO 1200+.
Arabia:
Gurjaras - 56.27%
Hindustanis - 56.08%
Franks- 54.94%
Huns- 53.48%
Arena:
Poles- 59.03%
Turks- 58.02%
Gurjaras- 56.56%
Portuguese- 54.16%
Bohemians- 53.01%
Berbers - 53.42%
Nomad:
Spanish- 63.40%
Koreans - 55.42%
Ethiopians - 54.37%
Malians - 54.10%
Portuguese - 53.96%
You can see that the only reason nomad is unbalanced is because of the spanish. Remove the Spanish, and Nomad is actually THE most balanced map. You can remove the top civ from the other groups, and the win rate of the top civ is still higher than the second-best nomad civ.
So, contrary to what you are saying, nomad isn’t the most unbalanced map. It has one problem, and that is the spanish. If you remove spanish, nomad is more balanced than any other map right now.
EDIT: Just saw that this isn’t true with the latest patch. But then you’d have to change the comparisons for all the maps and that gets messy. And even in that case, the Spanish are still at the top with over 60% win rate. THEY ARE A PROBLEM.
I looked at the leaderboards, and found your profile on aoe2insights. You are roughly in the 1600 elo range as per both of those. But your last game was 2 years ago as well. Far better than my current elo, but I’ve only been playing for a few months. You might have a higher elo on an alt account, but then show it to me. I can’t just take people’s words with no evidence, sorry. This is the internet, everybody lies. I won’t expect you to believe random achievements if I claim those either. I’d have to show it to you.
1 Like
you are starting to sound like HealFortress when he was claiming it was a different game mode. I find switching from something like 4 Lakes to Nomad a way smaller step than switching from Arena to Arabia. So this argument of ‘different from standard maps’ just falls flat for me.
you were awoken from your not so ancient slumber 11
I’d actually like a version of megarandom where you always start without a TC.
hmm, i think it should be decided on a case by case basis
I think something like +LOS for villagers (koreans) or kills wolves in one hit (magyars) feels very dark agey.
the difficult one would be huns (-100 wood, no houses. can they build houses until the TC is up?, say they spend more wood, then the tc goes up, can they go below 0
I don’t think this needs much change atm. but spanish without the extra building speed on the first TC would still be really strong on Nomad, so i think this would be a good nerf without affecting other maps.
why? we have often seen nerf targeting civs/strats on specific maps. see Mayan and Chinese extra vils on Nomad, faster, Sicilian TC building speed on Nomad, Bohemian Monastry cost on Arena, Incan Noboru Rush on open maps, Teuton TC drop.
####### i see this is being censored)genize? generifiy?
say you play as Huns, you can now build houses before your TC is up? or you can build a dock, but when the TC comes up you have negative wood?
there is probably some contrived case with chinese as well where they end up with negative food.
I really like having the korean LOS bonus etc
I like the intention for this bonus, but I think it should be considered civ by civ
1 Like
The extra LoS for Korean villagers is a very powerful top bonus until the first TC is built. Making them enable this bonus after the first TC is built is quite acceptable in my opinion. Even so, the extra LoS is still very helpful for finding resources (especially boars) after the first TC is built.
There are no wolves on the nomad map, so there is no need to consider whether it is a problem to delay it until the TC is built.
The extra resources can also be delayed until the TC is built. On the other hand, the resource punishments (like the Huns and Chinese) can also be delayed until the TC is built by allowing the number to be negative. When the amount of a resource is negative, it cannot be consumed until it returns to positive. For example of wood punishment, if the Huns build a dock before the first TC is built, at the instant the TC get built, the amount of wood would be -50 due to the wood punishment being enabled. At this point the player will not be able to use wood until at least 50 wood has been gathered. Of course, this in disguise allows the Huns to get the dock earlier, but the first fishing ship will still not be trained earlier, which I think is a fair and acceptable change.
About the food punishment of the Chinese, there is no chance to use food before building the first TC, so I don’t think there is a need to worry.
1 Like
for instance, the chinese bonus wording could be changed from
Start with +3 villagers, -50 wood, -200 food
to
Initial Town Center spawns with +3 villagers at a cost of -50 wood, -200 food
(this may put them into the negatives, same with huns, which is possible and also within the mechanics of the game)
For the huns, the wording may be changed to something similar such as
the bonus wording changed from:
Do not need houses, but start with -100 wood
to
Do not need houses, but once the initial town center is created -100 wood
other civs may recieve such changes to allow these bonuses to be used on all maps without needing to edit civs on a per map basis, which I heavily dislike the concept of.
I believe that, in the case of spanish and all other civs, that exisiting bonuses should remain able to be used without change between each and every map, and if a bonus is too broken on a balanced map then the bonus itself requires edits to ensure variable functionality.
Chinese got 150 wood left after TC which is enough for a dock, Chinese TC support +10 population so they don’t need house at the beginning.
We can just give Huns + 50 wood so that they can afford a dock. This will not make Huns OP compare with Malians and Incas
2 Likes
so you wish to reduce the hun negative for their housing bonus to only -50 wood as their cost on all maps?
with the -100 coming in upon the completion of the town center, building a dock should be well within the their options prior or while building the tc.
Huns currently, in terms of wood saved from not building houses at the start of the game, say 2 houses, only lose 50 wood currently from not building the two initial houses.
so in reality, the current hun cost for no houses needed is 50 wood at the start of the game.
and by the time one would build a mill and build two more houses, the huns bonus already paid for itself.
I think the Huns’ bonus is currently balanced, and shifting the cost of it to the completion of the first town center to be the best option to apply it on all maps including nomad. while if one were to simply switch the cost to only -50 wood then there is no practical cost at all for the Huns’ no houses bonus.
that being said, switching the cost to -50 wood would essentially place huns’ housing bonus as a pure bonus while still retaining the draw back of building two iniitial houses minus build time and work as a small buff to the huns. I would not be against it.
They were back in 2013-2018/2019 when they had 50% dock tech discount.
If you’re okay with this, I think not a single balance change is needed anymore.
I think just make the bonus same as Sicilians is good enough. No need to tweak numbers.
You’re saying this because you think it makes me sound absurd but you fail to realize that I’m totally onboard with it. I got five balance patches in six years during the HD era. Your scare tactics are not scary.
on another note, I wish Huns would have a bit more access to other techs in the university. Even if they dont need it and almost never used in RM 1v1, would love to see it.