Do you like how much change they are making on balance changes?

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

To me HD was amazingly balanced, and now it seems they are completely shifting the game every month now.

I like the amount of changes, I just disagree with some of them.


I fell some change should not be there (like kamandaran), but the reality is that in HD a lot of civis where useless (viets, khmer, saracens, koreans, teutons) and now they’re decent /good/top tier. Yes, balance need some polish but I preffer the current one


HD/UP was balanced because it was further out from the addition of new civs and features. Not because of the frequency of balance changes.

They’re aggressively tweaking balance in order to try and reconcile the changes they’ve made to the game, the new civilizations and the balance discrepancies that existed previously. I don’t see that as a bad thing. As the game becomes more balanced and in game mechanics improve (i.e. ranged vs melee mechanics), you’ll see the game’s balance settle. None of this feels like balance changes for the sake of changing meta as of yet, but rather balance changes to give every civ a more unique strength.


There will always be something to be desired on the changes, as it’s hard to get it right all the time when balancing such game, plus they probably take decisions based on data that we don’t have access to.

But I like a lot having constant changes to the game balance and twists to the metagame. Makes the online play more interesting, in my opinon. Previous versions of the game seemed to be too stagnant, like the pick rate for Franks on arabia 1v1 being over 60%.

1 Like

love the amount of changes! unfortunately for youand others, the majority appreciates the work the devs are putting in and doing cool things that some old time players wont ever like… but the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few…

auto scouting, map pools, censorship, tweaks etc are all favoured by the masses (and this isnt just my opinion, its evident on youtube, throughout the other forums, in the polls etc)…

Censorship is actually extremely overwhelmingly disliked by players. It is rare to have a poll with 97% of people voting in one way about any issue.
I am not certain about other things you mentioned. You need to show some poll results to prove your words.


I can’t comment much on the balance changes but I can’t live without some of the QoL stuff. I imagine balancing this game while adding new civs and units is quite a challenge. I live my life by the saying if it isn’t broke don’t fix it. Some people like to live dangerously.

1 Like

I thought I recalled the poll for auto-scouting at least on this website was not in favor of it.

1 Like

I did say everywhere else… This forum is such a narrow representation of the community (besides the minuscule 150+ vote out of 40000+ players) evident of the reception of scout on this forum compared to YouTube or Facebook etc which has a lot more users voicing their opinion

Censorship algo is broken, but is required to actually sell the game at a higher rate.

I don’t need to prove anything, if someone just takes tthe effort to remove their blinders and look at other media platforms all of this becomes pretty obvious

You said “everywhere else”, but didn’t give any real examples. Please show some examples of discussions on other platforms, where majority prefers censorship to give credibility to your words.
I have read discussions on different platforms for quite a long time and these forums seem to represent community quite well.

182 voters is not much compared to 40000+ players, but 97% of voters have voted in one way. This is incredibly one-sided and makes it very-very unlikely that majority of all players prefer censorship. Like you probably know, it is not needed to let everyone in population vote, if subset of population which votes, is sufficiently large and with similar distribution as total population. It is well known in statistics.

Show how you derived on such conclusion. I will seriously doubt this claim based on how negative has reception to censorship been. This game has a lot of good things in it, so many people are willing to stick to the game even despite the censorship. But certainly when some other person asks one of those persons, whether I should buy this game, then they would mention that teamgames are very troublesome due to censorship and this might convince people to not buy.

Yes, you need to prove your words, if you want anyone to take them seriously. Where are the discussions where people prefer censorship?


@JonOli12 lets try this again, read it slower this time you aswell @Yorok0

i dont care if you take me seriously… if you are so fixated on censorship thats your own issue. its needed to sell the game in specific countries, as well as to keep the age restriction lower again allowing it to sell to more audiences, im sorry but im done trying to explain this, TONS of games have had to do this, and every single time people complain about it like its something new…

Nobody wants censorship, unless they want to secure some kind of twisted power, and absolutely no one wants to be censored.

1 Like

Most games which have profanity filter, have it as an option, so people can turn it off. Making filter less strict helps but will still remain as a problem for many people.

This game has rating teen (13+), which allows strong language and so filter is not needed. Are they trying to get 7 year olds to play the game? This shouldn’t come at an expense of adults moving back to HD to escape from the filter.

If they are trying to sell game to as many people as possible, then certainly they need to have optional filter, so that they can sell to 7 year olds (usually enabled filter) and adults (usually disabled filter).