1 A game of 20 years, it is enough to have its original depth.
Maybe it has a lot of things that seem unbalanced, such as Inca Villagers affected by Blacksmith, extremely damaging and fast Mangudai, etc
Is this an extreme imbalance, or is it a legitimate characteristic?
The game’s tactics are constantly evolving. Didn’t the Zerg in StarCraft fail to win a championship for several years?But does it prevent many players from exploring Zerg tactics?
2 The patch is too frequent due to public competition.
I think it’s too competitive now to adjust the balance so often because of the high profile performance in a few games, and I think it’s going the way Blizzard did.This was very bad for the age of empires.
I think the production team should trust the players, and I don’t want to be chased by patches like playing StarCraft or League of Legends.
Be careful with balancing updates,please!
But the players themselves who ask for updates and balance changes. The thing is if you know that there is in the game some broken, weird, imbalance things, then why not to fix it?! I am not talking about few days or weaks problems, there are balance problems in civs were 20 years ago in the game.
99% of the times it goes like this:
→ player meets a new strategy, gets clapped
→ doesn’t bother learning the strategy, keeps getting clapped by it
→ QQ on forums/reddit about balance change
I think they found a pretty good way to handle this by doing balancing patches every 3 or 4 months. I think some small adjustments are nice to have. There’s usually only 2 or 3 civs with big changes anyway.
Then why you don’t make a topic for balance suggestions and let the people get for your holy knowledge MASTER rather than keep commenting on others topic and say no to everything?! Or don’t tell me that you are from those people who think the game is well balanced and need nothing?
the game is full of civs that no one picks <2% rate and instead of addressing such issues, many of the changes are mindless tweaking. This is kind of a consistent problem and many of the previous balance changes just made the issue worse
Of course so what is the new with your talk?! As the game keep get more new civs and players, the balance will still go.
Then I understand that you have better suggestions to make the game better? Because since you said worse then I understand that you have an idea of what is correct right?
I can definitely say that the Incas nerf made the game worse. Because before there were X fun civs and now there are X-1 fun civs.
It seems that the devs and many people here think that the game is not perfect until every civ have 50% winrate, yet they don’t realize that in the process of blind nerfing to achieve 50%, we have destroyed certain civs like Incas, Aztecs, Indians, which no one wants to play now because they are boring, and personally these civs are the main thing that keep me away from going random civ.
so how would you have handled those civs then? because frankly each of them were busted. people like reaves can sit there and say that tower rushes weren’t busted all they want but the statistics and the fact that it was literally 90% of the strategy used by Incas and the fact that even prominent pros agreed it was necessary and weren’t phased by the nerf says a lot.
Well summarized. We can have people like Mat arguing that civs that get ~1% pickrates are amazing, and good to play, but then statistically, everyone disagrees. Even pros agree that some of the balance changes were handled badly.
no - i said the winrate was fine. the civ is balanced. playstyle is something else entirely. and i agree they need something on that end. but keep pretending trushes were balanced - even the pros disagree with you on that.
they disagreed with how the changes were handled. they don’t disagree that Incas need nerfs. but hey, you keep twisting those facts.
