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”
(post deleted by author)
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..