Perhaps the devs did hire some very questionable profiles for their balance team or something 3 years ago, and all the questionable balance decisions were the result of this.
When I had correctly pointed out all of these flawed decisions and tried to warn people to protect the game, I was thanked by mods with the removal of my topic.
Some people just blindly think whatever the devs do must be correct, and whoever proves otherwise must be trolling.
An NPC is just an NPC in the end. Emotional, takes everything personal, poor judgment, lacking objectivity, lacking critical thinking, etc. A good game designer should obviously rely on math, common sense, logic and testing. Not the approval of random nobodies.
That new Civs turn out to be too strong or weak has been a common occurrence for almost every expansion and DLC so far. Thatās not something that started happening in DE days or something.
Just look at how OP Teutons, Aztecs, Turks or Cumans used to be.
Considering all the backlash for the DLC, I wouldnāt be surprised if they purposefully released (at least the 3 kingdoms civs) weaker than the average civ
Dude, Iām not a big fan of AoE2; itās not my area of āāexpertise. But lately Iāve been forced to pay more attention to these forums. What I see is that youāre constantly harping on the same threads and topics, and a large proportion of players and forum members disagree with your opinion. Instead of arguing in good faith as appropriate, you get angry and cause unrest. I kindly recommend that you slow down a bit, try to have more constructive discussions, and accept other peopleās suggestions. Youāre earning yourself a bad reputation.
On the other hand, as long as youāre always arguing about the game, even if itās the same thing over and over again, thatās fine. This is the space for it, and no one should censor you. But flaming, getting angry, or questioning Microsoft staff because they donāt implement your balance decisions is unacceptable.
Since this is a discussion for the new civs how do we think could they be rebalanced? (not changed thatās already been discussed in other threads).
Hero units should be removed (3 unique units for each civ is way too much and traction trebuchets too!)
Wu might need a nerf but Iām not sure. I think the Fire Archer and Jian Swordsman are pretty cool.
Wu, Shu, Wei and Jurchens donāt really suffer from identity crisis and feel like unique civs. Maybe Jurchens could use less bonuses but they seem really fun!
Khitans feel super varied for some reason (despite only having 4 bonuses). It would be cool if we got another civ (Tanguts) as a free civilisation which splits Khitans.
You donāt protect your reputation by tolerating insults and disrespects. You protect it by giving zero tolerance to these.
If someone initiates a conflict with me by insulting and disrespecting me, I have every right to take every measure whatever in my disposal against them, including reciprocating their insults more fiercely and ignoring them to drive them crazy until the point of begging for my attention.
They are the ones that started all the conflict, and if the mods had chosen to punish the offenders instead of the victims, none of these would have happened.
If you do that, youāll earn another silence, I already told you that privately.
Well, I actually try to always be impartial.
Regarding the new civilizations, which is the original topic of this thread. Iād like to see more American civilizations in AoE2 someday, like the Aymara, Haudenosaunee, Guaranis, etc.
Unfortunately North America is a bit prone to getting power-washed by either polar vortex coming south with no horizontal mountain ranges to block it, or hurricanes going north with, again, no horizontal mountain ranges to block them.
I did my best and still only managed to convince myself to plan to include Mississippians for North America in āRun For the Hillsā (Merina, Albania and Lan Xang have their own mountains to hide in, but the Mississippians built their own hills to withdraw to).
South America is much easier with Mapuche, Taino/Arawak, Guarani, and Tupi in āMen of the Southā.
The rise of the Haudenosaunee in terms of organizational level and size is rather late and probably fits better tech-wise in AOE3, in the same way the Ming-Qing transition can be shown in AOE2, but the Qing-Dzungar wars fit better in AOE3 (and Taiping Rebellion too).
Just nice to see you.
If there are more top players to give suggestions of game balance, the designning of the new DLC could be more scientific.
MS need different opinions from the players who have played enough time and have deep understanding of the game.
Itās hard to get balance perfect right out of the gate. I believe they do some testing, but not enough to guarantee a great balance. They have sometimes had a civ that was close to 50% winrate upon release. But sometimes a civ is off - sometimes too strong, sometimes too weak. And sometimes you get something like Georgians where they were weak on release but had a too-OP UU.
It does look to me like there are several things in the DLC that need balance adjustments: Traction trebs and war chariots seem to be on the weak side, TIger cavalry and Khitan pastures (after food bonus) may be too much on the strong side, etc. But there are some things that seem well-balanced (I think rocket carts and fire lancers were done fairly well).
Well, on that note, you also technically have the Pueblo/Hisatsinom and the Inuits that could feasibly be represented (Pueblo lived in Canyon Cities/large hill cities, Inuits were North American Northmen equivalents). But then, you run into an issue with the Pueblo; you canāt record their language, and they didnāt have much more than the basics for warfare.