please do something about the constant english players i am facing, its becoming stupid now and the game is just becoming less enjoyable by the week, fix the constant english player base, otherwise there is no point in releasing new civs because everyone will just play english!.
How could it be fixed?
English is pretty balanced so it’s not that they’re OP. There’s no justification for nerfing them and it wouldn’t matter anyway because even when they were considered the worst they were still the most popular.
They are adding some new things to other civs in Season 5, maybe that will make other options more interesting.
mate the fact they can slap 1 early Maa on your gold and thats it you got no choice but to try and go further a field for more gold, on top of that, the range of longbows is enough to snipe your food villagers and wood cutters, then they slam down 1 tower, outside your base and instantly have a huge advantage even when trying to repel an attack, on top of that they get a huge eco buff as well as cheap farms, as well as a amazing feudal landmark, literally like english is map OP and needs a rework, honest opinion is its the most annoying civ to deal with and literally the easiest to play, its the dumbest decision the devs can ever make.
remove network of citadels away from towers, increase the cost of farms by 25%, decrease the landmark production speed by 25% and done i think they will be relatively balanced, but as they sit, literally the most OP civ in the game in my opinion. i literally have no problems with any other civ except english its madness!
So those are all straight nerfs with no compensation.
As I said that’s just not justified. The data shows English is not OP. So any nerfs probably need some kind of buff in compensation.
That is where i would start for sure, further testing would help come to a better conclusion on where they need buffing, for real though. English get the same economy buff from windmills in feudal that rus get from getting 500 bounty. Then it is surpassed in castle. On top of that they get cheaper farms, sure they dont get unique units in the late game. But they actually have strengths in everything else as well. Their feudal landmark runs strong in even castle age. On top of that the white tower is a very strong landmark, giving 100% production speed to anything trained from it.
It most certainly is imbalanced and the data proves it. The idea that win rate proves that it isn’t imbalanced is false because by its very nature a ranked ladder will cause everyone to settle around 50%. A English main with a silver 2 skill level will still have a 50% win rate with his civ because he will settle in around gold 2. It will take people of a higher skill level to a balance his win rate out. This is something that happens naturally on a ranked ladder. However it’s apparent when you’re against an English opponent who has worse micro and responds poorly to harassment but you cant get anywhere near his town center, White tower, LB under tower etc. The data shows that English pick rate is about 5 times higher than the average of the other civs. Also English French and hre are all higher outliers than the other civs. These are the simplest civs with similar macros. Players who develop the skill to be able to manage the more complex mechanics of Delhi, mongols, china, and rus for example, should be rewarded with more payoff. Some make the argument that it’s a defensive civ. Well that breaks the rock paper scissors model with English because they are also exceptionally good at early harassment. They can have longbows in your base within 5 mins without any production building investment. This is extremely difficult to handle because you HAVE to age up and make a production building in similar time to deal with them. Except the rest of us have to pay for our production buildings. LBs are so good they trade pretty efficiently with horsemen early on as well. So they can effectively turtle and rush at the same time. Then if they go with tc landmark, they’re booming. No other civ Can pivot between these as efficiently as English. Some make the argument that pros don’t say it’s broken. We’ll it’s obviously not broken among pros and higher level players. But it’s objectively harder to deal with a LB rush than it is execute a LB rush as English.
i went from being plat 3 and almost hitting diamond, to gold 3 literally from facing english, with me, early rushing english is impossible, turtling against english is also nearly impossible, i dont know if its just me, but english is literally the bain of my enjoyment for this game, it is literally the ONLY civ i have issues dealing with, ive even seen on streams where people are saying they are sick to death of facing english, literally, english is just so imbalanced its becoming less and less enjoyable, i know a good player, when i play in a mirror and get my arse kicked, but when i play against english they literally can be a crap player and still win, its madness. if people think that the player base is going to grow i doubt it because people will just spam english and if you were to balance english i think half the player base would quit because they refuse to actually LEARN how to play!.
This is only true if people only play one civ. Many people play multiple civs.
Where’s this data of yours that “proves it”?
Because this isn’t data.
Tons of people only play one civ as well. In fact that’s the advice given by higher level players to lower level players - play one civ and get really good with it to progress.
The pick rate is the biggest and most important piece of evidence.
Analysis of civ mechanics and the rock paper scissor mechanic is another one. No other civ can rush out longbows with minimal investment, and then fast castle into a 2nd tc landmark. Or castle into a super keep with production. All while being more resistant to harassment than any other civ(vills with bows, keep TC, cheap farms, enclosures) NOC which is supposed to be a defense perk is actually offensive as well. Longbows are supposed to be hard countered by horsemen in theory, but in practice that doesn’t work sometimes. At best they’re a soft counter and depending on how the English player sets up, they can even trade worse. Palings is just salt on the wound by the devs.
one of the solutions to get better is to scout out what my opponent is doing. Yet English can literally do all 3 at the same time. How do I know if they’re rushing, turtling, or booming?
Anecdotal evidence is also a huge one. Many people disagree with it but in the case of extremely nuanced matchups with constant balance changes, anecdotal evidence is the only thing available in most cases. All the pros agree that Malians is broken. Where’s the evidence though? Well the pros know when a mechanic is too difficult to counter based off the feel of playing the civ and playing against the civ. It’s difficult to quantify, but it’s still valid and important to consider.
There’s far less anecdotal evidence for Malians yet still accepted to be broken. There’s far more anecdotal evidence for English being broken in lower level as English is the most picked civ and has been in more games than any other civ. The consensus from the majority of players, (except for English mains) is that it’s broken. Many of us have had situations where we successfully harassed English and forced a lower level player to idle vills or get distracted in another engagement only to have them come back and crush our army.
Generally on those forum threads an English main will chime in and ask for a replay or there’s no proof lol. Yet the solution offered is always “just play better.” I shouldnt have to play at a plat 2 level to beat a gold 2 English player. I should be able to play at a gold 2 level and have a fair fight. My apm shouldn’t have to be 150 above my opponent. My micro shouldn’t have to be twice as good.
English mechanics are broken. It’s not an opinion. Just about every non English player in bronze to low plat agrees except for the people play their worst matchups like hre
yes english is most of the time so unfair to play against because of their early massing longbows and they dont need to build a production building for it so when your enemy makes horseman english player can go for its counter with same resource. Just put 2 spearman into that longbow mass and there you go you have the map control,you can raid anywhere now. Pros has no problem with it but normal players like me its so hard to deal with it. My sugesstion for having hard time against english build every military back at your town center and do counter raidings with horseman.
When English was widely considered the WORST civ… it STILL had the high pick rate.
So no, pick rate is not sufficient evidence that they’re OP.
Fortunately we need not rely on anecdotes… The data shows that Malians IS one of top performing civs currently.
“Widely considered” the worst civ, or proven through evidence to be the worst civ? You cite anecdotally without providing evidence here while stating anecdotal evidence isn’t sufficient. And considered to be the worst civ by who? Professional players? The people who constantly pick it obviously don’t think it’s the worst civ. Look at the distribution chart of players by rank on Aoe4 world. Conq3 and above makes up like one percent of the total player base. Just because they say it’s the worst at the top level doesn’t mean it isn’t broken at a lower level. If it requires 200 apm to defend from a longbow rush while the English player only needs 80 apm to execute a LB rush, then it’s a broken mechanic, because players of the same skill aren’t afforded any meaningful way to counter or defend.
Also check the win rate of each civ broken down by ELO. English win rate spikes to around 60 something percent above 1600 elo which is a direct contradiction to most pros who say it isn’t broken and in direct support of my earlier claim that win rates on a ranked ladder mask broken civs because the English main will just rank up to a higher player base and settle in at 50% win rate. That can’t happen at the highest end because there isn’t a player base above them to bring their win rate back down.
Also look at the chart for win rate across all civs by time, regardless of elo. It shows English to be a huge outlier in the early game and then drops to a below 50 % win rate throughout the game. Once again supporting my claim. Once a higher skilled player survives the early push, a lower skilled English player simply won’t be able to outdo someone with better macro and micro in many cases.
Also for English to have a positive win rate overall while maintaining a lower win rate through 20, 30, 40, 50, and 1 hr marks, they would have to win an absurd amount of games in 15 minutes. How is a defensive civ so effective at rushing? All while being nearly impervious to a rush them selves? Are they a rock, or scissors? How do I respond within the rock paper scissors mechanic if they’re both? It’s a broken mechanic objectively and your logic is severely flawed. It shows your pro English bias instead of considering the facts.
Also where’s you evidence for Malian being broken? I saw more evidence for English being broken. Malian also has broken mechanics such as warrior scouts and farimba paired with absurd amounts of gold. But I haven’t really seen that quantified on a chart anywhere.
If you’re partial to English just because you’re an English main, why don’t you just say that? Otherwise refute the evidence
Back in August they were the lowest win rate above I think Platinum so no not just anecdotally. They were at like 47% in conquerer.
I actually don’t even play English. I prefer Delhi, Abbasid, and Ottomans.
Refute what evidence? You’ve only given your opinions and assumptions and anecdotes.
Where on earth are you getting that from?
It’s at 48% in conqueror…
You have to go down to Silver before it breaks 50% (50.6).
If they perform too well in feudal then maybe they could have some early game nerfs, with compensation in other areas, but they do not need nerfed overall or are OP overall as some of you are suggesting. There just isn’t justification for it.
I’ve cited several data sets on aoe4 world. You have yet to refute anything I’ve said. Pick rate in both ranked and quick match shows over 30% in lower elos, which is over twice as high as the second most picked civ at that level - French. It also is the highest picked civ across all elos on both ranked and quick match. You seem like the type to just dig in on your opinion when you don’t like the evidence. You have yet to refer to the rock paper scissor mechanic that the game seems to follow with every other civ. You have yet to point out englishes weaknesses that compensate for its defensive perks and early rush capabilities. You have yet to point out a valid counter to longbows that pretty much any civ could do. Ottoman has a an exceptional counter for English with sipahi and Lehrer, so perhaps it’s a good matchup for you as far as early aggression is concerned. That doesn’t mean that the majority of civs aren’t under equipped. Or truthfully if everyone else seems underequipped, then most likely English is just overequipped ie broken when it comes to feudal pushes. You seem to concede slightly that English may need a feudal nerf but not an overall nerf. But a feudal nerf would be an overall nerf because that’s where the vast majority of their wins come from (see win rate over game length chart) once again I’d like to point out that they have a massive amount of wins in those early stages that offse the lower performance in mid- late game. Such a massive amount that they end up with a net positive win rate. it’s almost as if you see the merit in the feudal nerf but don’t want to give the appearance of being In complete agreement. But that’s exactly what most people feel English needs. A nerf to Lb or no NOC on towers, or a nerf to council hall. So in essence you agree you just don’t want to admit it.
The 1600 elo spike was actually on the quick match ladder win rate chart. But the ranked match chart shows less variability so the data set is zoomed in and the spikes look more pronounced in comparison. Either way the point still stands English has a higher win rate than china for example across most elos. Why? China is a much more difficult civ to play and thus should reward those players more. but English feudal push is so strong, most of those wins come from the early game across all elos.
Please use actual links and/or provide screenshots if you use numbers from aoe4world for balance discussion. Apart from that I agree with CRothlisberger, the statistics might not include all data that is necessary for making definitive judgements on civs balance but you seem to be quite cherrypicking. Also making up the assumption he’s defending the English civ because he’s an English main is just a super lame argument and he already told you that it’s a wrong assumption.
Well i will use personal experience, i was on four lakes playing as rus against an english player, i went fishing he just used deer and sheep, he went all in on a feudal rush, he then failed the fuedal rush and got pushed back, now with any other civ this would cost you the game. But he was able to bounce back from losing a feudal push due to 1 tower, i then proceeded to produce more troops, he did the same, mean while he was able to afford more troops, rams, and even age up to castle while also still contending with me in military numbers, because of the boost from mills he was actually able to produce more than me even though i was fishing and he was not, by which point he slammed down a white tower literallly next to my base even though ibwas defending. So i called it gg, then i challanged him to another 1v1 except i asked him to use another civ to he accepted, he went abassid i went ottomans. In this match up, he fell behind on everything, i pushed his base, he barely had enough troops to defend, i pushed 2 sides of his base, with rams and units, at which point he literally lost within the first 20 minutes. Now i have attempted the same exact strategy with english many times in the past and lost miserably because of how defensive and offensive english are. So my conclusion was english literally have to much capability in feudal age, they need reworking so they are balanced across all ages instead of them being very strong in feudal, strong in castle and strong in imperial, all while being very easy to transition to farms, with a huge gathering rate boost in which most other civs have to pay huge amounts of gold for or gather bounty etc. But english is only costs 50 wood, yes sure its fine having a civ new players can jump into and gain wins with little effort, but what about the casual players that put time and effort into learning new civs only to be stomped on with minimal effort, from a civ that just had to many advantages, its a different story when you make it to imperial age and your are both slugging it out but then lose to superior strategy. But to straight out lose to a civ that just had so much feudal advantage that its hard to even comprehend how you are going to beat it is just not right. I dont care about data or statistics, i care about what i see being spoke about and personal experience. I literally can deal with any other civ except english for some reason i cannot grasp what it takes to deal with them but i can with every other civ. It just dont make sense.
English NEEDS a rework so that it is still friendly for new players as well as being less toxic for long time casual players!
They’re easy enough to go find. I’m typing on my phone so I won’t be adding any links. What’s lame is being a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian. There ARE some statistics that point to broken English. Absurd pick rate. Absurd early game win rate of around 60%, which is a huge outlier. Cool opinion bro but you also have failed to refute any of that and are just disagreeing base on your feelings. Also none of you English defenders have yet to say anything about longbowman or whether or not English is an aggro civ or defensive civ. Tell me that they’re a defensive civ and you won’t have an answer for why they can harass better than any other civ. Tell me they’re an aggro and you won’t have an answer for why I can’t get near their vills without trading worse. Even landmark analysis points to broken English. English has the strongest landmarks in the game. Each age up is a huge benefit in the form of increased production/keeps all for no cost. China for example gets clock tower which is slow production for strong siege. And not a keep. BBQ is a lame keep. Doesn’t do anything except protect a couple resources near my base. Berkshire is absolutely ridiculous. It’s range is just short of a trebs range which means I can treb it but I can’t protect those trebs. China imperial gets spirit way? Has a couple unique upgrades but hardly a game changer. And if I want fire lancers I have to do both castle landmarks? That’s just china. Other civs have some landmarks that are really good and some that are just ok. Or maybe they’re more viable in certain situations. English has a set of core landmarks that are viable in every map against every civ. And they’re extremely powerful.
English is super broken
I’ve had the exact same situation playing as mongols. I was harassing somewhat successfully and he was trying to defend. and at the same time dropped a white tower on my tc. And never skipped a beat on unit production although he marched 15 vills across the map. Also had a game where English feudal pushed me. I was rus. I scouted it and started making early knights and horsemen. Then some archers. He mixed in a couple spears and a handful of maa and I lost. Knights couldn’t get the maa because they were marching with spears. Knights couldn’t get the LB because they were right behind the melee infantry. Archers couldn’t get anything because they can’t deal with maa and they can’t reach LB due to range difference. All that early aggro from a “defensive civ”. he also white tower dropped me.