My Proposed Balance Changes

i thought about it, but it would be going into redesigning the whole unit into an actual power unit. where right now my idea makes it better at what it does, without impacting its performance elsewhere too much. furthermore it would be a big buff to Malians, who really don’t need a buff right now.

Kotd arabia is not a standard map, it is designed for this very tournament. It is seperate of new arabia in the standard mappool as well. You also dont nerf according to other very distinct tournament map generations.

Pros are no gods, they will learn during the tournament themselves and are biased when they start playing it.

I am sorry my memory must have missed their last game. But what is the margion of error of this number when you only have 11 games ? At least 1/11 ? So like 9% so aztecs could be either strong or bad it all comes down to one game being different which is not in the hand of the civ at all.

We are at bo5s. So players will pick every round at maximum 16 civs. Thats half of the civs. So ofc not every civ will be picked but its more like exponential suppression the weaker the civ is on this map. And there are just civs that are weaker than other civs. It is more welcome that its only 20% of civs not having been played. Kotd arabia is clearly not made to give every civ a shot but favours the aggressive open map style civs and players would be outright silly to pick C-Tier civs (whose existance is totally ok) when its about 50k of prizepool.

It is outright too early to make balance proposals just based on the first two rounds of kotd with a lot of games having a clear skill gap. Wait for the group stage and the play-offs and then we can analyze the data.

2 Likes

Honestly I think a lot of balance might be sorted out if infantry bonuses would actually see use in Castle Age. The game would only profit if LS are more viable for Burmese, Japanese or even Portuguese :smiley:

Edit: Maybe even Hand Cannons would see more use

1 Like

can we try to think outside the KOTH Tournament for a second

I personaly think there are alot of things to adress here as @MatCauthon3 said

1 Like

Aztecs remain a powerful civ even in more “normal” Arabia maps, as seen in pretty much every tournament this year. this just isn’t based on KotD3.

definitely agree, however the fact that the civ has been banned so much is very telling. furthermore like i said, pretty much every pro considers them an S Tier civilization.

here is the thing - Militia Line doesn’t serve the same purpose as the likes as the Knight or the Crossbowman, i honestly hate it when a civ has bonuses tied up into the likes of the Militia Line only. for example, i wish Baghains affected dismounted Konniks too, or Pikes, but the dismounted konniks might be a bit too strong.

1 Like

Just a point of thought, not a strong argument:
Isnt that exactly what one shouldnt do?
making civs more well rounded?
We already have plenty of civs that are well rounded, and are played quite often.
Personally, my balance ideas are more about making underused civs/units viable to create more diversity in the game. Making civs with a special identity more well rounded would take away from that diversity imo. AoE civs already play very similar. One should not try to make the play styles of the different civs even less diverse.

2 Likes

but still they could serve a different role with for example extra damage against pallisades and walls

and i liked the idea of switching arson and supplies

2 Likes

I just answered in the given frame of argumentation. When Mat used kotd data to argue for his changes to be necessary I have answered that it is too early to call something out of it. And I rather wanna see some design arguments than just mere winrates of a special tournament of special rounds. The aim of balance should never be a direct reaction on every tournament but you need a vision of a civ design.

Just hoping for: Let’s remove that and that and give other civs that and that and it will fix it, is no attempt I would recommend.

Ofc they are but there are different levels of S tier. And a civ being S tier is not bad. A civ that is S tier on arabia, A tier on arena and C-tier on hybrid maps is totally fine overall if it doesnt control the meta like italians on islands.

1 Like

sorry clarification. when i say more well rounded. i’m not talking homogenization.
i’m talking - every civ should be at least a solid civ on Arabia. it is the standard map that sees by far the most play.
if certain civs have maps where they do better due to hunt, extra gold, etc, i’m okay with that. but every civ should be at least 47-53% on Arabia if you ask me. you’ll notice i left imp age Arambai alone.

depends on what you mean with this - for example are we completely changing the role of a unit? or we just fleshing it out a little bit within its role?

You are right, not anymore. I agree they are not the “power unit” you are referring to, but they should still be the “allrounder” unit that you can throw at your enemy with little worry. Right now they are too expensive and are too slow to create. With your proposed tech changes this might change and it might even lead to more diverse unit creation in Castle Age. When civs like the Vikings with one of the worst cavalry in the game can pump out four stable Knights while having +15% HP on their LS, something is off. I know they don’t have the same role but from my understanding the Militia line is like a “half everything” role.

2 Likes

maybe, but imho i think thats less of an issue with new arabia

personally part of me thinks these two techs should just be combined.

im not sure if this could cause troubleshooting since they have to adjust alot aka tweak it to make it viable to merge

1 Like

its not just KotD3 data though. go look at literally most any tournament and you see Aztecs as one of the most common picks. go check which Civs the pros think are the best, and Aztecs are one of the top 3 civs listed easily.

this would be completely true if we didn’t have a system that meant one map dominated the map pool, but sadly we see Arabia played in 60% of games at all levels. at the highest level, Arabia and Arena make up 4/5 games played. this doesn’t leave a lot of room for those other civs to do well.

completely agree, which is why you don’t see it in my list.

Cheap Supplies is what we need in my opinion. Right now it’s as expensive as Bloodlines while only affecing ONE UNIT. I think your suggestion of 100f 75g should be enough for the start. You can afford it in Feudal Age and pump out more MAA as e.g. Malians or Burmese.

1 Like

there is a reason combined arson + supplies did not make it onto my list of changes.

1 Like

except i don’t see this being the case, its intended to be weaker then both archers and knights and weak to both.
per unit descriptions in the tech tree, per the fact that they are the only of the 3 without a trash counter, etc.

I think supplies should be more reduced. Militia line are too expensive and with the reduced cost they will be useful against eagle spam of meso civ that would nerf them indirectly.

Honestly my opinion, you can delete this tech and give them automatically together with m@a upgrade.

1 Like

i already cut it in half, and reduced the cost of the LS upgrade.

i don’t know if M@A would be a good tech for it because we already see M@A, but maybe the LS would be a good one.

updates made to the original post.
turks skirms/pikes gone, aztec lose sanctity gone, Italians cheaper GC gone.

Infantry needs a small push, this can definitely work.

This could be evan a civ bonus for Tatars

Other two things in needs for a buff, fine with HC, but I think SL needs just a different role, not just a cost change…

Consistent nerf for the top 1 civ… what about carry capacity +4?

Well… siege techs come late… 100w blacksmith is good. 50% blacksmith techs sounds more helpful for them, since their problem is the early game. I would consider to switch the discount from the siege techs…

Not sure if this is needed. I feel it is a nerf overall in castle age for a civs which does not deserve it

I agree. One option is a nerf to the tech tree. Like eckn +1 range and attack after the UT, but no bracer.

This can work. I was thinking of this: is it possible to remove the farm bonus instead and give it to another weak civ? Bulgarians or Italians may benefit.

GC needs a fix in TT ofc. Not sure on the cost, the upgrade cost has no sense btw. Age up bonus can be increased even more imo even to 25%, but then a water nerf should be added (dock tech around 25-30%, dependingon the corresponding viking nerf). I know water is not the goal here and just me and @Szebo210 want a nerf on water for Italians/Vikings. What about the old proposal of free archer armors?

I except a larger nerf for them…

I like this

Important nerf for a top civ, nothing to say…

Team bonus: an area around your TC is explored.

This may work, not sure

I still believe that a market bonus would be better (+5g per selling), but also this can work

1 Like