I wanted to see what people think about late game balance these days.
I’ll come out right away saying that (1v1 both armies fully upgraded) a certain civ seems to underperform massively and another doing too well.
I don’t want to specify my own opinion here though in order to not shift the focus of the thread away too much.
I don’t see why a strategy game is so unbalanced in the late stage of the game, especially when certain maps simply favor late stage gameplay way more.
I believe the general consensus across most of the industry is that DLC additions to the game usually release overpowered and are then tuned down in future patches after the DLC is sold.
I imagine this is top down direction from publishers.
Although it’s not a direct paid DLC, new characters in Overwatch have consistently released as top tier characters, with the notable exception of Lifeweaver. I think certain fighting games have also been accused of this.
I feel like that is sort of how the game is. Certain civs like to boom and reach late game, some civs don’t. For example I think no civ with unlimited resources can beat freyr late game if he has unlimited resources.
But I fear if they make all the late games the same then no one will initiate fighting.
It happens in all games. power spikes come in different moments. Some civs are better early, some are better in the mid game, some are bette rin the late game. It allows for different playstyles, strategies and match ups. If all civs had the same power early, mid and late game you might as well play mirror matches only.
If a civ survives against a civ that’s supposed to be stronger in the late game then the other civ should get the opportunity to be competitive. Nothing about this should be an issue, ranked is a thing and balance is the ideal. There’s a reason everybody leaves the game I guess.
If your civ is stronger in the early portions of the game than a civ thats good on late game and weaker early you are not “surviving” you simply failed to play the advantage when you were stornger.
If you play a civ that spikes in power early and falls off in the late game Your quote: “1v1 both armies fully upgraded) a certain civ seems to underperform massively and another doing too well.” You are meant to deal damage before that happens and get and advatange that you can lean on to push for a win.This happens in all games.
Civs arent balanced around to when you are both fully upgraded. This is the case in all RTS, theres civs that are stronger on the early game, some on the mid game, some on the late game.
Some civs raid to get an advantage and prevent their opponent from doing what they please. Some civs rely on playing defensive and getting to unlock their stronger late game units. Some civs bet on timings to push and deal damage and preparing for another timing to try to finish up the game.
Now, when a civ is the strongest on early, middle and late game compared to another… thats an issue, but thats not what you are presenting.
Agree to disagree then I guess, I’ve made my points and you made yours. In the end, it looks like AOM is not that popular due to its imbalance anyways unfortuntately.