some controversy with the recent patch made it more appearant to me that people really have different focus on how civs should be balanced. Obviously, in the end, the developers will take the final decision, but I am interested to see what the overall players (at least one this forum) is hoping for:
1) Where would you like the civ balance to be focussed around ?
- Around top ELO players: the game should mainly be balanced around those who play the civ “as it sohuld be”. This is the main place where a single-civ picker may not converge to 50% win rate. We want to see every civ getting played with some degree of success on tournaments.
- Around mid ELO players: the game should mainly be balanced so that the majority have a decent chance with any civ.
- Balance between top ELO and mid ELO: it is fine for a civ to be bad at top level when it is too strong or too difficult to punish at low to mid level, A civ with high skill ceiling (which mid ELO players struggle to win with) should be rewarded by being (a little too) strong at top level,
- With minimal changes: it is fine for a civ to be a little too strong if it has already been too strong. We do not want constant shuffle of civ tier list. It leads to pointless ELO swings, and it is fine if not every civ are equally strong.
- Make a civ tier list rotation: every few patchs, civs that are too strong should be nerfed heavily or civs that are too weak should be significantly buffed, such that every civs gets its patch to shine.
- Redesign any civs that is too hard to balance at every level. In the worst case, make every civ more similar to each other.
- Other (specify in comment)
2) If a civ should always be a little too strong, which case would you prefer ?
- Real history based: it is fine if a civ is a little stronger (resp. weaker) if it was indeed the most (resp least) powerful civ in the AOE3 timeline (XVII-XVIII centuries)
- Fan based: it is fine if a civ is a little stronger if many players like & play this civ. It makes the fanbase happy
- Anti-Fan based: it is fine if a civ is a little weaker if many people play this civ. When the play rate of every civ is similar, we will feel that every civ is to some extend satisfying to play, either because of its options or because of its raw power. And this is what matters.
- Game history based: it is fine if a civ is a little stronger if it was always stronger
- There is no reason to justify a civ being overtuned
- Other (specify in comment)
3) How ready are you to change your main civs depending on the meta and game balance ?
- I pick the best civ of the moment without second thought
- I tend to play the same civs, but have no problem changing when there is a big change and a civ suddently become way more interesting
- I really try to stick on my main civs, so I would only change if there is a really big imbalance which I am really not satisfied with
- I will stay loyal to my main civs through its high and down, and will keep playing it even if it gets nerfed to the ground
- I play random / I play a little bit of everything independently on whether the civ is strong or not
4) Where reading balance changes on the forum, how to you give credit to a balance complain/proposal ?
- I give more credit to a player who mains the civ the balance change is about. He knows better the civ’s strengths and weaknesses
- I give less credit to a player who mains the civ the balance change is about. He is too biased and tries to make his civ OP
- I give more credit to a player who has a higher ELO. He has a better unterstanding of the game.
- I give more credit to a player who plays every civ equally. He is the least biased and the most affected by a civ imbalance.
- I give more credit to someone who breaks down the numbers and make an objective cost and stats comparison.
- I give the same credit to everyone, even low ELO people or people who are ranting. Everyone is playing the same game.
- I give more credit to a player who gets a lot of “likes”, as it show that his comment is supported by a majority
- I follow no such specific habit