RoR is never going to get match making like AOE2DE is it?
Chinese aren’t Assyrians,they never used Camels as mount in battlefield just like all Eastern and Central Asia. Camels are only used in ancient times when strong horse breeds hadn’t developed yet and cavalry warfare didn’t spread all over the world. Camel-ine is one of the unhistorical thing in AOE2.
I’m addressing the point someone made about camelry not being used in battle. The Palmyrenes and Sassanids also used camel cataphracts.
1 Like
It seems Sassanids used camels until very late, 7th century. However, camels were totally vanished from battlefield after a while in Medieval. For instance, during 8 crusades (1096-1270), 50+ battles, no camel cavalry were used by Muslims.
1 Like
It all depends on how much popular it gets. Ranked lobbies vs MatchMaking system has been addressed back in the days DM was replaced by Empire Wars
Franks don’t lose the berry bonus in the current PUP, do they?
Ratha anti skirm bonus damage nerf was removed.
1 Like
No, it’s only been reduced from 15% to 10%
No, a Dev confirmed the berry bonus nerf was reverted.
4 Likes
Where was it confirmed? And by who?
1 Like
Firstly, you are just wrong about the second thing.
Franks are the number 1 Arabia civ 1200 ELO+ and up AoE Pulse
Stop saying they are average at the top level, they are not.
Also you are using a lot of words to say “git gud”. Oh, wait. Guess what? Even if you git gud, Franks are still number 1.
Also, you are saying git gud to maybe 50,000 people, a lot of who will walk away than deal with this bullshit. I’ll never play 1v1 Arabia because this civ (and a few other reasons)
What a dumb argument. This is the faulty slippery slope. I am asking to nerf the number #1 civ, and your argument is “you’ll end up with a watered down game”?
You love Franks, and how OP they are. There’s nothing more to it. So, just be open about that fact.
1 Like
Is the patch live yet?
Character limit.
Yes,you can download the PUP if you have Steam
No, it isnt live yet.
I bet it will be in June 30th due to the last changes. Maybe in 29th if we are lucky.
Kinda funny how you leave out the context. Ofc that was a direct reply to you saying you prefer to nerf one civ instead of buffing 20 just because it’s a top civ and people are obsessed with it for being “too good”. You do realize that with that logic there will always be top civs that will have to be nerfed (weakening their bonuses, etc. Like coff coff getting as low as 10% for foragers coff coff even though it was removed from pup). Creating a cycle of watering down this and that; when you can just buff weaker civs to make them competitive. Besides, what’s even a “too good” top civ? Being too good means having something very hard to repel regardless of what you do like the malian late castle age hard push in the live build or pre nerfs gurjaras? Because right now franks are not like that at all. I wouldn’t nerf other top cavalry civs like mongols or huns who are up there next to franks in my elo range either. Additionally the chinese are not like that as well. As I said before, the nerf is not going to change anything for most players, despite how high elos will get more opportunities against them here and there.
???
Since when 1200+ is top level?
Lol I’m joking. By this context, I understand what you are trying to say. So I’ll reply with that in mind.
Here is the thing: the options are there.
There are many ways to stop franks but low elos don’t use them. Surely they know what to do, but their inexperience makes them nervous and don’t try them, or maybe they try but fail. Add that to the fact the cavalry meta rules this game. It’s easy to see why this efficient civ at cavalry would feel oppressive.
Then again, that doesn’t change the fact that the tools to defend are there.
And if you want to at it a different way, you can see why they are one dimensional and easy to counter with good timing. So I’ll say it again, the problem is the meta itself.
Actually, all your arguments only reinforce the idea that we should move away from cavalry meta and buff infantry and siege.
There are examples of changes that buffed weak civs and improvements to infantry in general that indirectly affected franks: after the first infantry civs buff, franks dropped from 55.x% winrate to 54% overall. After the april patch, they dropped to 52-53% overall. Now to avoid you getting this out of context, I’ll clarify in advance this is just one small part with small results. I’m not saying something like do this or cripple that and everything will be fine. There are still a lot of things to do.
All this new trend of “let’s nerf top civs” over the last weeks is getting annoying. Although I guess it’s natural when most civs are A and B tier now but there are still people who need some sort of copium.
So can we just stop the circlej*rk against top civs?
2 Likes
The Arab armies also used camel mounted troops… Source 1. Nicolle, David (29 July 1982). The Armies of Islam 7th-11thm Centuries. p. 11.
Arab armies used camels for transport and travel, not as charger.
1 Like
By all means, if not sooner. Notwithstanding their current unavailability in ranked, it’s still a bug if the farming rate is in fact higher than stated, and better to get ahead of the issue if that’s the case. But I don’t have any reason to believe it’s anything other than the nominal 5% - I’m guessing there was a bad input (or even copy-paste) initially that was caught and fixed pretty early on.
That’s a solid approach for a lot of applications, but I look at AoE2 balance very differently. At least, for my purposes, outliers are generally discarded because they give useless or distracting information - for example, in manufacturing, parts that fall very far out of tolerance imply some kind of aberrant input and are not representative of the typical outputs of a controlled process. The pro scene in AoE2 (or really most skill/performance-based applications) is in some ways the opposite - it represents how units/civs interact in a hyper-controlled, peak-performing, some would say ideal, situation. And in that sense I think pro play is the closest reflection of a true or platonic state of balance. So rather than viewing pros as occupying the discardable right flatline of a bell curve, I see them as the bulls-eye of a target, or the peak of a pyramid, having significance beyond the small space they occupy. Obviously the gameplay experience is important for all levels, and there ought to be a tolerable state overall - although lower elos tend to be somewhat less-balance sensitive, and less able to be balanced without either neutralizing or automating core gameplay elements (e.g. archer or monk micro and eco balance).
Consider also that a lot of players experience pro-level play vicariously through tournaments, and a lot of mid-low elo players are sensitive to top balance if only on that basis. Quite a few balance threads are formed on the basis of X civ being too dominant in tourneys (or never seen), Y strat/unit being OP, etc. I think some people take this too far, e.g. the parroting of the “need” for a Chinese nerf by people based on what they’ve seen/heard for pros but that has no bearing on balance at their own level. And Chinese are pretty exceptional in the peculiar way in which their power scales with elo. So I’m open to a minor nerf to Chinese that’s mainly targeted to high elo players but doesn’t compromise the civ’s core identity or its iconic strengths, like Hera’s suggestion of losing Heavy Camel.
3 Likes
You’re beginning to sound like my brother.
Be that as it may, without any necessary context or obvious relevance, I don’t think that kind of statement adds anything to the discussion.