A small balancing move came yesterday. And everyone with a brain wanted very specific requests; like a Chinese nerf, or a Wei nerf… But there was none! What they did was make the already strong Jurchen stable units even stronger. I know why, because below 1200 ELO, the Jurchen win rate is 46! Above 1900 ELO, it’s 54, but that doesn’t mean anything! Because people don’t know how to play Jurchen, we have to make an already strong civ even stronger! Excellent move! Let me tell you a secret: Do you know why they didn’t nerf the Chinese? Because below 1000 ELO, the win rate is 45. Above 1900 ELO, it might be 57, but that doesn’t matter to the developers! You’re not doing the game any favors, man. You’re just breaking it even more. What you should be doing isn’t balancing civ levels for unfamiliar players; you should be encouraging them to play the game correctly, maybe creating tutorials… But isn’t that harder?
I resonate with your sentiment for the most part but just wanted to clarify a couple of things. The 1900+ stats does mean a lot if it were true but what you’re seeing is bugged data from aoestats. If you take a look at the number of games, it shows 13 games for Jurchens and 15 games with Khitans. Obviously Khitans and Jurchens weren’t played just 13 and 15 times out of 50k+ games while other civs were played 2k+ games. So there’s some bug in the way they’re pulling data. Actual data from AoE Pulse for 1900+ shows 45% winrate for Jurchens overall. So they’re indeed very weak as well.
Given the misunderstanding from observing the bugged aoestats winrate, I guess its now clear Jurchens aren’t actually a strong civ even at 1900+
Unfortunately they have a balance discord with only the 2500+ players and they act as gatekeepers of broken OG civs. They are very comfortable with those civs by playing them hundreds of times in tournaments and practice sets, so they won’t let any nerfs come in to those civs. They’ll just hide behind the “don’t touch classics” and use the change resistant sentiments of people only when nerfs are proposed to OG civs. But they were totally fine when Chinese got double buffed with drop-off and 15 pop tc.
It is indeed harder. I believe for the first 12 mins they can put a link to some content creator’s build order videos or guideline videos. But beyond that the game’s complexity rises and build becomes more adaptive according to civ matchup and opponent’s choice of strategy. Its very difficult to create a do this for this situation kindof tutorial covering all use cases.
But I totally agree with you that stats from low elos who don’t know to use hotkeys, drop-off and queue vills shouldn’t be considered at all while planning balance changes. My guess there are one or more low elo devs and they’re the reason why some new infantry civs have been extremely weak since their release. Those guys think ooo their longswords play is so strong, their uu can kill teutonic knight 1v1, so lets balance it out by removing too many unit lines and techs. And the civs end up being abysmal.
I agree with what you said about the Jurchens. I’d also like to add that I would agree if the buff came from somewhere other than Stable units. Stable units are already strong, so there’s no point in reinforcing them, as that would only create a one-sided civilization.
And I think instead of just linking videos explaining how to play each civilization, an illustrated and written guide could be created. I’m sure people would be eager to read it. It would be a much more enjoyable and balanced gaming experience if people learned how to play each civilization correctly; after all, it’s impossible to balance the game for both pros and novices simultaneously.
If a civ has mediocre eco strong military or strong eco mediocre military, its fine. If a bonus like this was given to Franks or Slavs for free that would be crazy. But resource benefit for Jurchens is very minimal and they don’t have the knight line. That’s why despite getting good options, they’re not performing well in ladder. So a 5% increase would definitely improve the civ without making them broken. And it won’t be a one-sided civ because the bonus applies to rof of stable units, ca and fire lancers. Things will only go crazy if someday they decide to buff Jurchens eco and forget about this 25% rof bonus.
2450 civ permutations and the ideal way would deviate when opponent plays unconventional. Like lets say an ideal play with some civ is scouts but opponent is trying to do a phosphorus build. Now scouts is no longer the right play. Capturing all of that is going to be a book with several hundred pages. If the game gets rich enough, they can train AIs for this and let 2 AIs play each other and create recorded games with in-game chat explaining why the AI did whatever it did.
Agreed and I’m saying they should ignore the novices data completely. Whatever low elo players decide to do is less logical and more random. So the games don’t actually reflect on civ strengths and relative positioning at all.
There are more people with a below 1000 ELO then an above 1200 ELO.
There are only very few people with an above 1900 ELO.
I completely disagree. The Winrate differences between civs are about the same in low (below 800) ELO and high ELO, just that different civs are good or bad.
There is no reason why low ELO players should be less important then high ELO players. They are all humans of equal values that all deserve an enjoyable experience. Fun in the game should not depend on skill.
In the very high (1900+) ELO brackets the civ performance might greatly vary based on the personal skills and preferences of a small selected group of people. A single person can greatly influence the civ performance in that group. In the larger ELO brackets like below 1000 there are much more players so all the personal preferences and skills level out to an average.
Those 2 vidoes show well why civ choice and civ balance matters a lot in low ELO too, it’s just different aspects that matter.
Chinese are the best example. Their 3 villager bonus is very powerful if you know how to use it but it’s hard to master their start so low ELO people struggle a lot. Chinese are already the weakest civ in low ELO so any nerf to them would make them unplayable.
If you ask me games that do balancing only for the 0.5% of pros become terrible games over time.
800-1400 are the main focus. They are doing often great things. example: for civs that are really good at high elo and bad at low elo usually need only a small eco nerf to keep in check and a boost to some unit, those which are good at low elo but not that great at high elo, mybe only a small nerf to a certain bonkers unit who needs low control to do its thing etc..
Everyone has to start in low ELO, no one is born a pro. Even if you are experienced in other RTS games you need to learn the unique quirks of AoE2.
Every pro was a noob at some point. And maybe that pro would have stopped playing if the game was totally unbalanced at their skill level.
But pros are a little more relevant then an average player. They have viewers that pick up their strategies and listen to their advice. If a strategy is being revealed as OP during a tournament there are a lot of people seeing that. So in some way you have to add the viewers to the importance of pros.
AoE also has to balance different maps and game modes so there are some additional difficulties.
You talk about equal citizenship, about every player having the same rights. I think you’re making an agitation with a real value of zero. That’s not exactly how things work. The experience and knowledge of elite individuals are always prioritized. When a constitution is drafted, it’s done with legal experts. When education is reformed, the opinions of experts in this field are sought. When economic decisions are made in a company, it’s not all employees, but the company’s competent managers. That’s how things work in both the modern and ancient worlds.
The argument that low-elo players’ statistics should be used in game balancing is the most illogical and absurd argument I’ve ever heard. Because low-elo players’ statistics can never provide us with accurate statistics. Because they’re not playing civilization as they should. They’re playing it the wrong way. For example, I’m sure most low-elo players who play Chinese don’t get looms when the game starts.
If we balance the game based on the right statistics, low-elo players will succeed once they learn to play correctly. There’s no reason why a low-elo player should fail after learning to play Chinese. But an overly powerful Chinese civilization is ruining the game of 1500+ Elo players. And there’s no solution! But as I said, a low-Elo player can find a solution by learning to play Chinese. But there’s no solution for the other!
In fact, there aren’t many significant differences in Elo stats between most civilizations. A few specific civilizations, like the Chinese and Jurchens, have these differences. We should definitely balance these by looking at Elite Elo stats. I’m not 1800 Elo, but even I want this balancing to be geared towards 1800+ players. And as those unfamiliar with the game, we should consider how we can play better in certain civilizations. Resources should be created to help us with this. At the very least, a guide could be created explaining how specific civilizations like China should start their openings.
I think Elitism is a problem in society. And sometimes the experts aren’t as competent as they think they are. In AoE2, this could be seen with Hera’s initial reaction to the Shu (and I think Viper’s as well). Another example: Georgians are considered a strong civ by the pros, but from what I see of their stats, they’re only strong on hybrid/water maps. They’re doing pretty poorly on Arabia and are bottom 5 on Arena (1200+ and all ELO, because 1900+ has really small sample size that results in a lot of noise)
Some time back, there was a proposed balance change for the Chinese start. At a pro level, it would have had negligible impact (because pros generally get +2 vils anyways) (probable exception for maps with shore fish near TC, but that would be a good thing because Chinese are OP in that situation). At a lower level, that change likely would have had a more positive impact. But there was pushback for nostalgia reasons. So a change that would improve balance was rejected for non-balance reasons.
This argument sounds illogical and absurd to me: Why would low-elo players be unable to provide us with accurate statistics? You do not need to be in the top 50% of players to know how to make use of a bonus. Neither do you need to be 1900+ ELO to play Chinese with less than 30 seconds of dark age TC idle time. If you use a bonus only 50% as effectively as Hera can, does that really make your use of it wrong? I don’t think so. And the range of win rates in 850- is pretty comparable to 1200+ and 1900+.
Now some of the lowest ELO players might not really understand how to use a bonus (or know what the bonuses are), but that isn’t true of every player below 850. And even if you don’t understand how to take advantage of a bonus, that doesn’t mean the bonus has no effect.
You seem to have misunderstood your own analogy and applied it incorrectly. No one is suggesting that balance decisions should be made by low elo players – they’re saying that they should be taken into account by the people making the balance decisions.
Let’s try applying your analogy again. I work in education and have recently been involved in an educational reform, so I’ll go with that example specifically. When education is reformed, yes it’s done by experts in education, but it’s important that those reforms take into account all students, not just the highest performing students. Not only that, it’s actually more important to focus on the lower-performing students – high performing students will be fine almost regardless of what you do.
So if you think this analogy should apply to game balance, actually you should take into account data from all levels, placing more emphasis on the lower level players.
there is no “wrong” way to play the game.
now low elo players are, more often than not, playing suboptimally. However some civs make it easier than others to play optimally.
If a civ being unbalanced (be that due to being misused or otherwise) makes the game unfun to play, the civ should be changed. It’s as simple as that.
lots of players will never learn to play the game “correctly”
My friend, I don’t like bourgeois elitism either. I side with those who say art should be for society. Rest assured, I agree with you on this. My point isn’t some empty elitist fetishism. I’m talking about the need to consult the most reliable sources to extract the most useful information. I want low-level players to learn how to play Chinese. What you’re talking about isn’t teaching them how to fish; you’re simply giving them fish.
For example, if a student persistently uses incorrect solutions to solve a difficult problem, taking longer, do you make it easier for them by changing the problem, or do you show them how to solve it faster? By the way, I congratulate you for implementing an educational reform that pays extra attention to low-level students..
There is not “correct” or “wrong” way to play the game. Not everyone who is bad or mediocre at the game will eventually be a pro. Many people are just stuck at their ELO, many people don’t want to put in the effort or can’t get better for some reason. Many people that play AoE2 are older and therefor can never get the super fast reactions and high APM of a young person anymore.
You think all those people should not have a right to have a balanced game because they are not good? The game is supposed to be fun for everyone. There should be no really OP civs on any ELO brackets. So I do somewhat agree that Chinese need a nerf because being OP in one ELO bracket is worse then being weak in another one. But it would be nice if there was a low ELO buff for Chinese to equal that out.
And I’m not talking about super low ELO like <500. I’m talking about general everyone below 1000 ELO which should be roughly half of the players.
I didn’t mention elitism – maybe this was intended for @JasuniSmith? I don’t see how this relates to what I said.
Probably neither, but this is quite off-topic. I guess you intend this to relate to people learning how to play Chinese, but remember that the original thing that prompted this discussion was about Jurchens. On paper they actually look like they should be an accessible civ to lower level players because of the no decay bonus. In fact, I think the no decay bonus is wasted on a civ that isn’t otherwise lower-level-player-friendly.
(For what it’s worth, I think the Chinese villager bonus is quite a bad design. It made sense when AoK was new and neither win rate stats not optimised build orders were a thing. But nowadays it’s much too polarising. The Mayan bonus achieves much the same thing – both in terms of function and flavour – but is much more balanced.)
Thanks, I guess? It doesn’t really seem to have worked as intended, unfortunately…
A student persistently using an incorrect solution to solve a problem is not the same as playing a video game sub-optimally.
Video games are meant to be fun, not played optimally
All enganging the OP here 11111
While is obvious who’s lol
A lots of comments! I just wanted to add that they didn’t addressed the siege towers or taxi strat. One of the most unrealistic mechanics of the game (and there are a lot of them).
The Turks gold buff seems to be done by someone who doesn’t play the game, it just made them even broken in arena-like maps.
Game has a steep learning curve but not enough learning resources. And 1000 is not a good starting elo. Given these issues obviously more players are going to be below 1k elo than those who are above 1200.
Lets calm down and not make it a humanitarian issue. I’m talking about stats for determining civ strengths and making balance changes. Lower elo players don’t know build orders, lack basic skills like the use of hotkeys, control groups, kiting ranged units, use of stances and patrol, multi-queue units using control groups etc. Archer civs, CA civs rely on the ability to use many of these skills. So obviously people who haven’t learnt or are unaware of these can’t do well with such civs. Doesn’t imply those civs are weak and can’t buff such civs or their units. Imagine buffing Mangudai, Mongol lancers etc. That would be crazy. If a civ is too powerful at lower elos, they’ll climb some elo and eventually get destroyed by players who know the game better. They’ll eventually realize these Sicilians, Bulgarians are just a low elo thing, and learn how to tackle them.
Even though its 1%, its more than 600 players and in about 2 months of a patch there are 20-30k games. These are the games which mostly reflect civ strengths. A single player heavily influencing the result of a civ is partially true and I agree there are some people like hoang, phosphorus who artificially inflate the stats of civs like Celts, Spanish, Bohemians etc. So 1900+ is also not a perfect statistic. But fortunately most players don’t play that way and even though its not perfect, 1900+ stats are definitely much more informative than low elo stats for balance purposes.
Chinese are definitely a tough example but there are ways to nerf them for pros while making them easier to play for lower elos. Here’s how I’d do it - Chinese start with +3 vills, a huntable chicken under the tc and -150 food, -50 wood but tc works 10% slower in dark age. High elo players will take 2-3 seconds of idle tc but skip loom, do 11-12 vills and go feudal. The vill lead in pro games will drop to 1.2 to 1.4 from the current 2 to 2.3. On the other hand, lower elo players can queue a vill, do loom and it will be 55 seconds on the clock, they’ll have 50+ food even without force drop-off since the Chicken will be done by 44th or 45th second. And since every new vill is produced slower, there won’t be a necessity to force drop-off.
I agree the part about needing more balanced maps and complexity in decision making but civ balances still need to happen based on the games of players who know the basics, form good strategy, use hotkeys and other mechanics and have good decision making skills.
You know how elo works?
If you reduce the starting elo the average elo just goes down. Elo is a 0 sum game.
The big difference to chess is that chess clubs assign players a staring elo based on their skills and not always give the same value. AoE2 tires to do that by increasing the elo gained/lost in the first 10 games but that means that people will almost always start by losing multiple matches.
If you would change the staring elo it would over time (maybe within a year or so) just change all the numbers. Then 800 would be the new 1000 or something like that. I purposely chose the starting elo and a number higher then the starting elo.
Since about 50% of players will be below the starting elo there will be definitely less players above any number higher than that.
I never suggested to prioritize low elo in balancing. They have to balance both, which is obviously harder but it’s necessary. If you just balance for high elo like some people are suggesting here the game would be an awful experience for most players, not just in ranked but across all game modes.
Average elo is just the average of ranked players. There are also many people that just play custom lobbies, coop vs. AI and so on. For those people balance also matters. So the effective number of below 1000 elo players is actually even bigger then 50%.
I’m just asking out of curiosity; would it make sense to have an upper limit on Elo? For example, a 3000 upper limit?