Really? top players decide what in the game get a nerf?

at first my english is not good but i hope you understand my point…
here are rumours that top players decide and give advice to the devs what should get a nerf?? i am very surprised about that i never thought that it seems that the game is getting harder and harder to play when i see the gameplay from africa dlc i think its getter complicated for normal players like me. Please remember we are not all pros and please devs make it not more difficult


Top players ofc decide what needs nerf or not, because they play civs into their very end limits and exploit even the smallest of the bonuses to win.
Take a look to Chinese in AOE 2, this civ is OP at high levels but at average level they are undeperforming, that means Chinese need a buff to be playable at that level, making then more OP at high one?


Balance changes is a process that never ends. Sometimes it is because a civ is strong or week, other times its more that changes some parameters so that they make viable and other strategies for a civ expect the one that everyone plays.
Practically, these changes stops only when the company decides to stop updating the game.


Who else should be giving advice? Players who don’t know how to play the game?


I guess these guys wanted that players who constantly post “PLEASE REMOVE SWEDEN or PLEASE REMOVE USA or REMOVE CAROLEANS” could be in charge of the game. That would be an interesting move for a game if it wanted to flop completely. hahahahah

Thanks devs disreagard these threads


There is one thing: I suppose “new dlc civs getting more complicated” is the direct opposite of “top (competitive) players deciding the balancing of the game”. Because for competitive purposes “simple and effective” is the preferred design.
For example US is not currently a very competitive civ and rarely used in matches. And it’s by far the most complicated.

EDIT: but of course the fact that top players are giving advice about balancing is true and I think it’s a good idea.
The ideal practice would be to let the dev team and experienced modders decide what contents to make first, and high level players help balancing them.


This is a ridiculous post, who else would decide what needs a nerf?

There’s a post on here with hundreds of replies about how gatling guns need a nerf, if people like that chose what got nerfed it’d just be anything they lose against.
There’s still people wanting a usa nerf now despite it being a mediocre civ at best.

On another note, I think the african civs need some buffs, the hausa knight and archer in particular.
Ethiopia seems more ok but it’s shock infantry seem quite weak, and it’s age 3 cav needs a cost reduction or a buff.
Maybe influence rates need to be increased too, the civs seem to gather influence very slowly and as it’s used for so many things it’s hard to even get a native post tech now because the full costs in influence, rather than say 250f 250g for another civ.
Seems to be a huge lack of strong shipments too, other civs do a ff or semi-ff, start sending in 5 spahi, 2 falconets, 12 uhlan etc. These new civs seem to have quite underwhelming shipments age 3, the fact that training artillery requires an influence costing tech and then more influence per unit makes it even harder to counter enemy artillery, mostly due to the underwhelming cav units from both civs.


I think OP think that he hopes the skewness doesn’t increase too much and the game becomes too difficult to learn.

I love asymmetry, but the truth is that it has taken me a long time to learn to use all the new civilizations, characteristics, revolutions and other additions of the DLC’s, for a new, novice or casual player it must be disheartening …
I played a lot more than 15 years ago, and I have played again this year, I have tried all the civilizations and there are still several that I find it difficult to control or I am lazy to learn.

My best friend played more than 15 years ago some competitive games rushing with ottos, now he has returned to play and basically only uses Spain and has not yet tried half of the things that the civ offers, nor has he tried the vast majority of civs , nor is he aware of the ins and outs and differences that exist … if I am sometimes lazy with such complexity, how will it be for my friend?

Last week I taught him in a game the cattle boom, in a week he will see that he can exchange African cows for 3 resources plus a new one, and my friend’s head is going to explode.


well top players are biased, if they don’t like X play they could suggest it should be nerfed and such. Also top players benefits from changes that suit them making them potentially higher ranked. You don’t necessary need to be good player to execute something yourself to recognize what is too too powerful or needing buff.

Latter part of op post is also important. Even before DE i thought AoE3 is way too complicated as you need learn every civ on top of building good deck(+ there is really deck tutorials or tutorials in overall) and learning strategies. now there is even more civs and US/etiopian/hausa make playing even harder which turns more played off from ranked and such. Game isn’t just for top players.

In the case it refers to the balance, the developers should listen to everyone, preferably the professionals, but they should not stagnate the game no matter how much it may create new imbalances for the established goal, for me a rush, an FF, an FI, a turtle, a boom, in certain situations should be effective, not just FF, that variety makes AoE more beautiful.

Personally I would like to improve many absolutely absurd and unusable cards, especially old ones.

On the other hand, I would like you not to create so many resource-collecting buildings. The control of the map, the raids, etc., are basic elements of AoE.

I also don’t like units that take on multiple roles or have special attacks.

Most of the forum complaints made by average players are due to these types of problems. And the balance has to take into account these situations as well.


yeah within reason top players should be the one making balance decisions, as long as they dont suggest things that wouldn’t ruin the game for others (like buffing cavalry siege).

Very well said. Top players are important because they have better understanding and help promoting the game, but they may have their bias.
Especially for older civs. They have well-established metas and people are very familiar with that, and may want to keep them as they were. As a result, some of the very underwhelming parts remain unattended because no one ever thought of using them. One can tell that some of the cards are underwhelming by just looking at them.
Like there is a British card called Florence Nightingale that turns your manors into semi-hospitals. Has anyone ever thought of using this card? (even the standard Master Surgeon is rarely used). And for the 1001th time, unique church technologies. Many of them exchange a huge penalty for a small buff, one that newer civs can easily get for free. That part is mostly forgotten in any of the patches, because despite one or two civs no one ever thought of sending the church card in the first place. Not even in casual games.
Not to mention there are new cards/techs that stuff effects of multiple “older” cards into one, or do not even require a card.

Okay if people want those meta untouched. But the game design entails many huge potentials that are still wasted. It would be kind of boring if everyone is going for the same few strategies (otherwise, why do we need the deck system in the first place?). Balancing and updates should not only be centered on buffing/nerfing the meta gameplay but also opening up other possibilities.

That’s why I enjoy watching players/streamers who, despite being high ranked players themselves, went out for weird of even meme strategies. The game needs to be fun in the first place.


And one thing that makes me a bit frustrated is that, it seems the devs are aware of those underwhelming parts of the game and how to buff them, but most of the attempts are thrown into new civs only. One of the reasons of course is that the old civs already have their own meta and do not need those.
To name a few:
Mercenaries not viable → made a civ that can more easily amass better mercenaries (F to Germans). Other civs do receive a mercenary buff though, but that is still not making them viable, and conflicts with the more preferred options.
Livestock not viable (on many occasions) → now making civs that are almost centered on livestock.

I mean, it’s nice if these are kept as the distinctive bonuses for the new civs, but I think equivalent mechanics for the old civs also need a slight buff (not overhaul) to make them viable as well. There are already a lot of nice examples of “the unit type is useful but one civ has a better version of it”, etc. and I don’t need to list them out. I’d prefer that model over something like “the unit type is useless but one civ has a useful version of it”.
In that case the reworked revolutions are a nice attempt. Most of them are still not very useful, but it’s at least a general buff to an underused part of the game, rather than making the new civ, Swedes (for example), the only one that has good revolutions.


I think I’m starting to see the source of confusion here. Giving balance advice does not mean designing entire new civs and telling the devs how complex they should be. Balance advice means advising the devs on what numbers they should tune to make the game more balanced; it has generally nothing to do with complexity.


Balancing a game isn’t this black or white… You can balance a civ and make it more accessible for casual players, while also maintaining the balance at higher level.

Sure it’s hard to get to this but that’s what balancing means. Even from a business point of view, ignoring the casual players doesn’t make any sense. They are after all the largest part of your playerbase (unless you’re telling me most of the players here are professionals?). Does that mean you need to listen to just the casual players and humour the most ridiculous requests regarding balance? No, not at all. Just like it’s silly to listen to only the small percentage of players who play the game each and every day, it’s also silly to listen to the small percentage of players who play the game like once every month.

Either way, this patch won’t be their last. There will be more patches in the future with balance changes so I wouldn’t worry too much just yet.


In the grand scheme of things, balance changes affect pro and advanced players the most. For lesser players, starting with 50 less food or having slightly less hitpoints on your torps is not what decides your wins/losses. The game is just not played optimally enough at lower levels for majority of balance tweaks to be a significant factor. At high and pro levels, these changes can indeed have a large impact. Thus it makes more sense to consult the pro and high level players. Also, having a discord just shows they are doing the legwork of getting feedback. They can’t have a discord for all of the low players as there are just too many, which is why things like these forums exist in addition to win loss ratios (see aztec nerfs…)


I do sympathize for the game getting too complex. My brother loved vanilla age3 but can’t get into DE because there are too many units and strategies to be aware of. I love the game for it’s complexity, but at this point I would argue the complexity is more from a large quantity of different units and strategies rather than any one civ being too out of the box. I think this is the nature of trying to add engaging DLC over the years (which is what sells). It really started with TWC and TAD and has just progressed from there.


DE is not really any more complex. I play the original game on ESO with my brother, and I play on DE. It’s the same game with a few more civs and some new cards


yes i agree its the same game but remember how long you need in the old game that i will say you are ready to defend a rush? and then play the de i am sure you see you need longer i will say a few mins maybe 4 or 5? with the same nation and the same team deck and thats my point and now more nerfs a few nations i think on swedes ok all good but turkey ?

Well, that depends, if the game is supposed to be a competitive game (like SC, or LOL) with also a casual and single player mode, then obviously the civs should be balanced taking in account their performance at competitive levels. But if the game is supposed to be just a fun game with a ranked system on it, then the civs have to be balanced according to their average-player-level performance.

Which kind of game AoE III is? that is the question.