This is a Mexico only issue. The mexico revolutions should be treated differently than the other revolutions. Ordinary revolutions are usually only imba in specific matchups.
2 Likes
This is a non-issue that I will call āThe LionHeart biasā since this is not representative of most games, but because the guy likes revolts a lot and is trying to make them a thing, he displays more revolt wins.
I am happy that revolts today are a proxy to a whole new unofficial civ thanks to DE, based on their history and not random base-game units. The ones that were overpowered like Peru and Argentina initially, were nerfed accordingly.
4 Likes
Exactly, and if there are revos that still overperform in specific match ups, those revos can be nerfed accordingly. There is no need to double revo time or nerf forts for everybody when most revos are just piss poor.
4 Likes
Exactly. Lionheart likes to use revolutionaries just because they are revolutionaries. The Mexican revolutionaries in the age 2 revolt are just plain terrible and he loses a lot of games because he spams them. He also hates making villagers, so revolting fits his playstyle perfectly, as does playing Otto since villagers are auto created or Sweden which has torps which generate resources. In most cases for the rest of the civs (i.e. other than Mexico), you are better off not revolting, which indicates a good game balance. There are a few instances such as Spain revolting to Chile or Mexico Rio Grande revolt where I am supposed to somehow defend against several field guns and industrial level musks (the revolutionaries), which I have faced in 1v1 ranked, which I donāt feel that I have any chance of beating even when I know it is coming.
The French revolts into Canada and Napoleon are cool and are without an economic downside, Iām not sure if they are OP or not since Iām the only one who does it and have not seen an opponent do it yet.
2 Likes
Iām currently working on a mod that rebalances various revolutions, so Iād like to ask your opinion on an idea Iām considering:
- The revolutions that normally block the production of Settlers and transform them into military units (Except the revolutions of the Mexicans and Finland), now cost 2000 food, 2000 wood and 2000 coin, but in exchange they no longer block the production of Settlers, and They can advance to Imperial Age by paying 1500 food, 1500 wood and 1500 coin (without politicians or politician bonuses).
(Because you can advance to Imperial, this would come with some balance adjustments, such as blocking the ability to upgrade Chilean Death Hussars to Imperial Hussars, etc.)
This is my main idea, another idea could be to replace the Infinite 1 Fort Wagon card with āCastrametationā, among other ideas that I am considering.
Any ideas, suggestions or corrections are welcome.
If weāre taking in consideration how bad a player is and how low his apm is to compensate his lack of macro then itās a retarded game. There was sometimes where lionheart wins top players like ungurs julian because of lame revolt , you will disagree because you are one sided and like the guy and will not think of the balance in general
Ill disagree with you because this take is also bad and has nothing to do with his points
A 1700 elo otto player nip a top player win streak, does that mean otto op? In this case alot of revolt issues are due to unfamiliarity which leads to tilt. Are we to balance the game to appease the egos of ābetter playersā so they dont feel bad and someone with game knowledge cant win? That would kill the appeal for aoe3 for so many of us, aoe3ās unique features is through the deck and asymmetric design a less apm player can pull an upset through better planning.
I dont like a lot of these revolts and think argentinia especially has issues but im not going to base my assessments off personal attacks im going to wait and see.
Now if in the spring ESOC event revolts are KotM crabat level of every game spam we know somethings up. If Lion is on a 50 game win streak just botting revolts something is up. If he pulls a dub off someone and the other person is upset that just means the other person got had.
Truth is theres a mix of op cards and strats and players needing to adjust and actually learn aspects the game at every level. After all, ālowkotaā suddenly is s tier almost like people needed to explore it before making an assessment(and prob still need to keep testing see if its truly op albeit it reeally looks to be atm)
3 Likes
This game is probably way too complex for someone to reasonably know everything. Thereās too many variations. Which is fine, means itās hard to get stale. But OP starts are easily visible. Iāve never seen someone complain about either forts or normal revos so far. About Mexico yes.
1 Like
I mean the amount of revolts these days where you just click the revolt button and win is pretty crazy (argentina, france, Finland). And turtle civs benefit the most from it as they can easy FI into revolt. I do like the take that revolts should be 2000 of each res. But still all revolts should be all in and the fact that they arenāt is just terrible game design even the revolt mechanic is terrible game design but whatever. At the end of the day It just bad for the game as its very tilting to play against.
1 Like
I just found out that the Flemish revolution in AOE-2 works in a similar way to what I said here. I think this would be ideal in AOE-3.
Originally was an aoe3 style revolt and turn all vills to army. Then it was too op and was nerfed, no one uses them ever since