[Poll] Create new subforum "Balancing and Civilizations"


The discussion forum is overwhelmed by balancing, civ artwork and civ requests.
It might be useful to introduce a new subforum dedicated for these things.
I hope that the discussion forum is more readable then.
The subforums would then look like this:

II - General discussion
II - Civilizations and balancing
II - Report a bug
II - Modding
II - Ask for help

Before we go into further discussion, I just start with a poll:

Should there be a new subforum created, called “Balancing and Civilizations”
  • yes
  • no

0 voters



No. Let balance suggestions happen here. This seems the most wildly read place for AOE in general. Some balance changes have been implemented from these very fourms.

I trust they won’t make very bad balance changes that would break the game. Like removing the archer armor class from the mameluke.


You don’t understand me, or you are joking.
I mean to change to

II - General discussion
II - Civilizations and balancing
II - Report a bug
II - Modding
II - Ask for help

Btw: I feel that your posts are the reason why people are getting annoyed and tune out of this forum, including me.


I only half-read your post. Sorry.

I feel that your posts are the reason why people are getting annoyed and tune out of this forum, including me.

What are you talking about? I never trolled anyone here or forced them to leave. I simply told people who make silly balance threads that their ideas are bad.

It’s that the game is balanced well at the moment, and we have enough civs.
In TGs you can pick civs.
Also tournaments there are civ and map drafts.
So balance and civs are not a problem for the game, which suffers from a lot of problems elsewhere.

I feel that the discussion forum here does not reflect that, because of the high numbers of balancing and civ threads, opened and filled by certain users.
I don’t mind these threads in general, but they harm a general purpose discussion forum imho.


Great idea. Most of these balancing and new civ suggestions are pretty useless in my opinion. Having these in a seperate board would be great. This makes sure other ideas can also get there change to shine.


A better idea: When you make a post suggesting buffs or nerfs, your 1v1 RM ELO will be automatically displayed next to your username, so we know who we’re talking with.

I think it would be a very neat feature for a forum like this, since people would think twice before e.g. requesting mameluke buffs every week, and it would avoid unnecessary heated discussion, because the rest of the users would know what kind of player is the author of the thread.


I mentioned that yesterday together with the poll, but it was delisted for some reason.
Now I didnt mention this suggestion, because it is not needed for the topic.
I said that everybody, who is not top 1000 rm1v1, should stay out of balancing discussions.


So basically 95% of the playerbase


top 1000 is at least 1700 elo

1 Like

1700 ELO isn’t even good enough by your criteria

Imho yes.
That is because the game is arguably balanced at the moment.
And also because a lot of things change within the top 1000.
Arb civs become much stronger, certain eco bonuses become more valuable etc.
The winrates of the civs change entirely.

But this is not the topic here.
It’s super easy and convenient to make a dedicated subforum for civs and balancing, instead of making the ratings public and forbid some people their opinions.

Great how that contradicts the thing of Useless and flawed winrates with too limited data?

try to post some balance changes related to the Chinese and Mayans and see how some wild users scream that both are too bad at lower ELOs

Even pros are sometimes wrong. And there are some non top 1000 players with good knowledge, but bad execution.

Less than 10% of the playerbase browses these forums actively, so it wouldn’t be a problem

You don’t know my criteria. And even 1600 ELO (very arguably) would be good enough to (possibly) prove you have an advanced understanding of the game.

The top 5% of the playerbase cuts at 1550 ELO, which isn’t even considered “good”. But at that point, the gap between you and 2k has to do more with soft, practical skills (working memory, attention span, physical speed, improvisation, composure, etc, etc) than pure knowledge. @WoodsierCorn696

However, I’d rather see a “bad” 1500 ELO making balance suggestions, than a cocky 1000 shitposting nerf/buff requests because either he likes or he dislikes something. The first is at least more knowledgeable than the average. The latter represents most of the “balance” threads you see in these forums.

Cmon I saw players at 1.6k and commits several and fatal mistakes

@Rissen6157 @WoodsierCorn696 @FurtherLime7936
Let’s stop the discussion on which level of players should provide balance suggestions please.
It’s certainly valuable to discuss that, but let’s not do it in this thread.


that was a good one mate

1 Like

Exactly that is what this forums needs, several topics get buried by the 50 topics about choles, zimbawe and greenland civs suggestion.

Also the topics about balance barely any of those are about actual balancing, instead they are full with boost here and there to basically all civs, while balancing should be about removing unfair advantages and not changing civs identity in a 21 years old game, there can be good suggestion but it would be better to have them all in a certain section rather than spammed all over.


Sorry that comes across as elitist. I am not one of those pro players because I simply do not play ranked quite often. Even noobs should have a voice. I know the ins and outs of this game quite a bit, I’ve played it for years.

However, I mostly play Europe diplomacy or some crazy scenario. Only played a few ranked games just to show that I don’t have zero game record. I don’t often play ranked games in general.