No I agree with you. I think the devs should listen to the pros that have a sense of what the game would and should be like with new contents and altered meta, not the “revert everything to what I’m familiar with” mentality.
Wholeheartedly agree with you. I personally love the newer stuff being added to the game, but for balance changes atleast, I’d rather trust pros than have conjured up changes as is so common on these forums.
‘Players like Kaiserklein’ are the other top players that play all civs in equal measure, legacy or not. Just because one top player can’t be arsed to learn new civs for lack of time, doesn’t mean the others are too.
And when you have top players like Revank (OP) and others suggest changes, you can’t just shut them down without giving them an audience saying ‘pro players don’t understand new civs’ and want ‘skirm-goon’, and other baseless comments.
I personally don’t agree with everything he has had to say up until now, but blanket banning them as seen in this thread and in other places on this forum is unwarranted and disappointing to say the least.
No ones banning them, kaiserklein is an example. Revnak has some good points but they shouldn’t always be taking as gospel something that’s strong at 2100 elo doesn’t mean it’s as good across the whole player base. I’ve seen some terrible points made on the esoc forums by high level players plenty of them dislike new civs and will balance around that.
I’d agree in big balance changes as long as there is more attention from devs and more frequent hotfixes/updates, a man can only dream of this.
Considering the pikemen range buffs for most civs, shock infantry shouldn’t be a threat past age3, unless you refuse to use the tools given to you by the game itself, you could always pick pikemen focused civs.
But it will not make them F tier, ever. They are just fine as always, a little bit slower but it opens the window to more age1 options, as the GMT card, or trickle cards. You could even ageup with cows and vills.
The very fact we publicize these builds to make devs see it defeats your argumentation. But I do note that this is an ad hominem argumentation against me. The fact that I make this point does not make it less valid.
I wish to see the fish-rush patched if it’s unfair, I truly do.
PS : you joined 14 minutes ago. Who’s the smurf ?
I will let this comment on our values and persons unanswered, because you just joined those forums, while knowing the Age Of Bison Youtube Channel.
Your PS looks like an attempt to hide your identity. But I might be mistaken
I will let the value of our content speak for itself, and not clutter the discussion any further.
EDIT: Post put as a response to avoid clutter.
The most ridiculous thing is that you so-called top professional players are satisfied with the changes made to Sweden in this balance patch. Don’t you really know how strong Sweden is in each elo segment now? These nerfs are not enough, Sweden needs more nerfs. Sweden is destroying the game. And you ignore this.
I don’t think high level players have a ‘deeper’ understanding of the game necessarily. While watching twitch I often see them not knowing stuff I know. The bottom line is that mostly ‘high level’ players are obsessed with ELO and only using the best civs/strats and can move their mouse really quickly. I don’t observe that they have superior game knowledge or even more time spent on the game than ‘normal’ players have. And some certainly have bigger egos and look down/condescend to other players.
This, exactly! This is what balance is about, MATH and playtesting.
I think you are largely right, it must be worrying to play the early game with the British in that patch against certain games, where you will not have much freedom to execute a good defense or early pressure due to the difficulty you will have with the macro due to the costs and less amount of villagers, I think that maybe +50 of initial food should be given,
Shotel is too strong at age 2, It does a better job than an age 2 heavy cavalry killing light infantry units, The base unit is already strong too I think initially the shhotel didn’t have any cards as the unit scales monstrously with cards , the shotel trades well even against musketeer, i remember watching germany and malta vs ethiopia matches. Where the shotel erases the archaic of those 2 civs well, even the pikemen are not a great counter against the shotel, obviously almost always a German or Maltese will have more crossbowman than shotel, I think that this letter should only increase 15% of life and add to it +5% armor, that unit if you add more damage will be too strong to kill infantry, also take into account that the unit is not expensive and is created from a basic building that contains infantry and cavalry
Rajput I think they exceeded, the unit does not have to be fast and at the same time have a good siege, please take into account the rodelero, it is a fast unit with a lot of armor but with a bad siege and little life, take into account the halberdier not it is fast but it has very good life and normal siege, the rajput was an intermediate point between a halberdier and a rodelero, fairly decent siege, speed a little fast, but not with much life, now the unit will have 3 qualities, it will be fast, good siege And Damage,
They could lower the siege, it is too high to be fast, also it does not have such a bad exchange against the infantry given how much it hits in 10 seconds, the insurgent is fast, it has a good siege but horrible exchange against the infantry, it is more if they want compare how many insurgents it takes to kill a rajput and you will see that being units almost equal in qualities you will see the vast supremacy of the rajput
I think they should lower the siege and even raise the food cost a bit to 95 instead of 90
The FI of Italy is the least I would think of buffing,
I agree that 20 nizam is a lot considering that the letter has other more useful things, it should be a maximum of 16
As a Malta player I am totally disappointed, Malta needed changes not Nerf
Artillery should benefit from 1% health and not 2%
Hospitals should cost 125 - 135 wood not 100
The units of the order feel like a more negative characteristic than a positive one, except for shipments.
The musketeers at the beginning are garbage, you only limit yourself to the archaic and if possible also hussar at the beginning of the game
Steel bolts was good to nerf the siege
Playing economic with malt at the beginning is very slow and involves a lot of sacrifice, so I think that 2% penalty to the cost of shipping is ruining something that is already bad in itself.
if you go double hospital archaic rush, you totally burn all your macro and economy at that, you have practically no savings until minute 9, considering that the malt archaic is weak at the beginning like any other you only have the premise that it ages well thanks to the cards and the bonus, unlike the archaic of other civilizations that do have archaic units that are more expensive but are very effective, such as the fulani, I should re-evaluate Malta, also I am sure that if they launch malta like this, it will look like your win rate drops more than it already is
Spain, these small changes to Spain will not change the FI at all, Spain will continue to be just as incompetent, the FI revolution will continue to be the only reason to make FI or Soldiers with the haciendas, Please get rid of the idea of improving the Tercio Piquero, having at rodelero that practically fulfills almost the same purpose.
They should add more spain cards based on the stereotype of the civilization (Heroes, melee units, Greed for gold, Religious fanaticism) Their main problem is the aging of the infantry, you need a lot of cards to make it useful and also be at age 4 thing that Spain cannot afford economically,
While the rest of the civilizations that have better economy and really need 1 card are already above Spain in musketeer and light infantry, they should unify some percentage cards no matter if the stats are lowered in return but there are too many cards to improve the units , The peninsular war card should only affect (skirmisher, villagers and revolutionaries) Leave it at age 3, to have the skirmisher competent at age 3 and not at age 4, also consider that the Spanish soldier was ridiculously strong thanks to how the card balances spanish soldier
You’ve made a great point here in regards to top level players. I have a friend that plays regularly and he’s on the low elo side about 1250 and this guy knows this game back to front, even I learn new stuff from him regularly about a multiplier on a certain unit etc and I have way too much play time. He’s an older guy though and he’s not as quick on the mouse but his knowledge level is more than enough to be like 1800 elo. he also plays almost every civ because he knows them all but he’s not going to be as good as someone that only plays 2 civs and gets all the timings down to the second.
From personal opinion, I think it’s important to know that there is a decent amount of top level competitive players that enjoy new content and new civilisations added to the game, we appreciate what developers do by listening to us players, we just believe it’s important to talk about those clear balance concerns before they are released in the official patches. Competitive players try to play play on optimized build orders, after all it wouldn’t make sense to play competitively with a build order or unit combination that doesn’t work , Some natives are doing great combination some are not. But calling top players not knowing the game is an exaggerated statement overall.
quite agree tbh ( 20 character )
I think the British can afford not to have 3 villagers and nothing happens.
I can’t understand where you’re coming from with this. They have the same DPS as Chimu Runners against infantry and can absorb one more hit versus heavy infantry. Other than that they’re worse versus everything else. If you’re going to compare them to regular cavalry, they’re more similar to things like Steppe Riders or Naginata Riders, not Hussars. The new card also is irrelevant because Oromos are clearly better than Shotels Warriors and you should be using those instead.
The thread becomes a bit concentrate on pro players opinion…
In fact whether pro / competitive players considering balance is not important issue, anyone talk about balance should have support like playtest, data comparison, etc to prove himself, otherwise it is only a personal subjective opinion. The main point is personal opinion would always be together with bias for everyone including me, no one can say he doesn’t have any bias.
However competitive players usually know more about the stronger way to play for they are trying to win the game. I respect and I agree their opinion partially.
Take 2 example from native, Az after DE was being nerfed age2 units quantity, removed 5 vils, now ERK is being nerfed too. Looks they already get nothing above average.
Another is Haud, I have proven their 2 main units are under average deeply in data comparison from my thread, but people still saying they have strong eco due to livestock card, infinity resource crate card and wagon, competitive player said their are strong in competition.
Should we consider to adjust BO not making all the units under average? It makes these civs completely unplayable out of competition and other game modes for their main units are under average, with eco are also not good for native. These 2 civs with lowest pickrate, already seldom people want to use them and close to never appear in my game experience, people here are still asking for nerfing them continuously without bottom limitation and no one try to rectify due to they are not favored civ.
This is what I see for balance going in Aoe3de.
I don’t see the problem. This thread is literally about pros giving their priori impressions about the coming changes. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with anyone voicing an opinion without stats to back it up.
Obviously supporting an opinion with stats and analysis is better, but let us not boycott forum discussions who do not.
After all, the balance changes are not /should not be based on appearant popularity of opinions on the forum. And devs are not that naive either: they won’t blindly apply any change just because a famous pro or content creator asked for it. They should make their own case study beforehand. They have better info than us anyways. A few years ago (2?), I remember them nerfing india because “they had been a little too strong on the ladder for a while”. And we were wondering why the devs woundnt share these data with us…
I agree with you. Nobody on this forum uses “stats and analysis” when discussing balance tbh. If we dismiss the opinions of several of the top players in the community because of this reason then we should also dismiss every other random person complaining about balance on the forums.
We often don’t have stats about things and even when we do, we all disagree on what they mean for the game anyway so why not let everybody say their piece without character attacking each other.
That is probably about as good a comment as any other on here.
I have added unit stats for the previous topics I have used personally, Malta units and African Javelins were clearly over performing according to stats. Same as shotel warriors rajputs and all other concerns which is posted in the main competitive post here. Competitive suggestions are all based on data and knowledge, not all of them are shared to not flood the forums but for an example of one of the change PUP is bringing, most units have lesser bonus against shock infantry and this is clearly showing that shotels will kill all type of units even easier starting from the next patch with those stats, even without the shotel combat many competitive players reported how cheap shotels are and need to be balanced.