Caps lock got stuck? I know that. That’s why I’m curious why people are complaining about all sorts of random junk instead of the obviously broken things. I’m not even going to touch on how predictable and stale the meta is for team games…
That is usually what happens, empirically. When something gets nerfed, most of the times it gets nerfed to oblivion. (Sometimes that’s warranted, sure, like Cumans on release, but a lot of other nerfs handed out in the past have been way too strong)
Got a source on this?
does it? Aztecs, Mayans, Franks, and Chinese have all received nerfs in the past year without nerfing them out of the meta. yeah. i agree they shouldn’t have nerfed Incas as hard as they did, but to say tower rushing didn’t need to be hit is laughable.
sorry, i guess i shouldn’t be so literal. but most the big game RTS all say the goal is 45 to 55, even blizzard said it multiple times throughout the years.
My point was not really a specific civ. There are other civs that have been hit real hard. E.g. Burmese.
Arambai needed to be hit - but they deserve compensation.
I would at this point prefer to go to a clean slate, revert balance to before DE and just have a well thought through go at it. I think it will be easier than working from this point onwards
I disagree. I feel like most civs are where they should be. chinese could use a little nerf.
Inca’s and burmese needed the nerf they got but they diodnt get compisated. Still waiting for that.
Also portugese and koreans maybe a slight buff.
Burgundians need a new UT for flemish revolution and sicilians also need a buff (and personally i think a new UT for first crusade) but i think thats it.
So 7 out of the 37 need some work (maybe im forgetting one or two)
I remeber a time when none of the rise of the rajahs civs were viable and italians were also unplayable.
I think the balance of the civs has come a long way but there is still work to be done in that aspect of the game
that would possibly be the worst thing to do - you complain about how few options their are now and want to go back to then? good luck.
not to mention the massive upheaval that would cause.
This game is in great shape. Stop simplifying it to support frustrations.
Most civs have 48-52% win rate, which means they are all playable. Few outliers have an extra +/- 1%.
For 98% of the playerbase the civ is far from the reason they win or lose games.
In a decent 1v1 match you will see 3-4 different units by each player… in feudal! Siege and monks are used very often in castle age, and UUs get into play late castle / imp.
TGs are only knight+archer every game if you only play Arabia. Certainly not the same in the other maps.
I think we should have people’s elo next to their name here in the forum so we could see if their opinion is worth reading or not.
damn man… yikes
Ok so what would be so bad about making longswords viable or near viable by buffing them a bit?
That could be fixed by bringing back the old incas and giving other civs whacky bonuses that enable cheesy strats like that.
depends on your definition of viable. the role of the militia line is to be anti trash and anti eagle right now (as well as beating huskarls).
if by viable you mean you want them to compete with knights and archers, they would need a trash counter to be able to compete with them. not to mention other changes.
There’s nothing wrong with what he said, in fact I agree exactly with what he said. And I will point out that you are being a hypocrite saying that you’re glad CA got buffed, but are dead set against LS getting one. The meta is stale, and the reason so many age players returned is because everything is fresh and new.
Just put him on ignore permanently, he argues for the sake of arguing and is a waste of time to respond to.
not really i think @MatCauthon3 has some good points to evaluate and think off why the 2 clash into an endless loop all the time is a mystery to me
as posted earlyer in this thread, if you would want the long sword to compete with the knights and xbows in castle age, they will need a trash counter.
Furthermore, i do not see how you would include longswords into the knight xbow mix without making xbows the most seen unit, since they counter infantry.
As explained, i like how the militia line has its position in the meta. Militias and m@arms as openings, longswords as pikes, eagles and huskarl counter and champions for late game spam for certain civs or as trash counter.
I dont see how likeing the CA buff is hypocrite. I also advocate a handcanon buff
Handcannons don’t need a buff. I completely destroyed Celts with Burgs the other day using handcannons.
If you are saying they need a trash counter then they will be more worthless than they are now. Most people are only advocating for a slight increase in movement speed, or an extra pierce armour, or less research cost. Those are pretty minor changes. And the problem is really LS not the rest of the line. At the moment if you are an infantry civ you are better making your UU than researching LS. And its only when you finally tech into champions in late imperial that the LS upgrade gets clicked.
Thatz not to mention how stale infantry units are in the game. Besides eagle warriors for a few civs, and condos once in awhile your barracks will only produce 2 unit types. Whereas archery ranges have up to 5 options, stables have up to 4 options, and siege workshops have 4 or 5 options. Heck even castles have 3 and docks have more. If they would make some new regional infantry types I wouldn’t care so much about longswords
a small buff ofc is fine. Id watch out with extra PA tho without balancing the malian bonus out. Feel like that can been really OP
The only thing i dont want is that long sword get integrated into the knight vs xbow dinamic bc to balance that, basicly the whole castle age has to be redesigned