mongols scratch their heads… OP mangudai(a lot more people say magudai is OP than people saying keshik is OP) coupled to decent eco is better than “OP” keshik according to a lot more people…
Keshik, leitis with relics and FU konniks are all quite pushing the power creep exeding FU paladins in Pop efficieny or cost efficiency by significant margin.
I was under the impression any unit more powerful than Frank’s paladin are bad for the game. And here we are with teutons paladins.
A civ needing an op unit to perform is a bad design in my opinion. Like Burmese and arambai.
2 Likes
How could it be “way too strong” when the civ loses so often?
1 Like
How can be bad if with 35 civs is obvious that any civ gets stronger units than the Frankish Paladins, and literally here we are in 2020 and is time to give the chance to other civilizations with paladins (Lithuanians and Teutons), is like crying that Choson Legions in AOE1 aren’t anymore the strongest because of RoR which introduced the Romans with fast attacking Legions.
I really like now the Teuton and Lithuanian Paladin, but still the Frankish one is amazing and strong.
I’m also against nerfing the Keshik while Tatars have such bad win rates. The cost effectiveness might be too good but Tatars really need that unit which can also only be created from a castle.
They are in the same boat as the Leitis with the difference that Lithuanians are a far stronger civ.
Tatars are at the moment at the very bottom as last civ with 42.09% win rate at 1250-1650 elo. On Arabia even 40.79%.
These numbers might change during the month but it shows that you can’t nerf the Keshik while Tatars are in that bad state.
And if you increase the gold cost to 50 it is the same as the Leitis which is clearly the better unit in most areas.
4 Likes
Exactly the Tatars are like reversed Mongols in terms of winrates, is kinda sad and personally like the Tatars a lot.
Update: looking to Mongols are struggling now: https://aoestats.io/civ/Mongols/RM_1v1
3 Likes
Yeah lets base our opinions on winrates…
Imo tatars are an avarage civ and nerfing keshiks wouldn’t be a big problem. Those units are nearly the same tanky as a paladin but cost half as much.
you can sit there and say that, but the fact is that every time a civ shows a trend of having a low win rate, that civ gets buffed, so clearly win rates are at least one factor the devs take into account when deciding things.
3 Likes
20 less HP, 1 less melee armor, 3 less attack and castle production. All these factors can’t be ignored. Unit balance is directly related to civ balance. If Tatars are performing badly, then they can’t make these units altogether or can’t use it to win anyway. Then it clearly needs no nerf.
1 Like
The keshik is quite beefy FOR its cost.
the problem with the keshik is that it’s overshadowed by pretty much everything else.
operating under the assumption of equal resource fights it will beat other units easily, the problem is getting to the point where that can actually reasonably happen, which just doesn’t exist.
yeah its cheaper then the knight line by 10 food and 35 gold.
it also has less attack then a knight/cavalier.
less health then a cavalier / paladin
slower attack rate then a knight / cavalier
and the most important factor is the melee armor.
basically the unit is bulky and lower attack and defenses for it.
is it overpowered? i don’t know, but i rarely see tatars played and their numbers are lackluster.
1 Like
Winrates being one factor is very different from basing the balancing on winrates. I do agree that they can be one, probably a more unimportant factor for balancing, but it is wrong to base balancing ONLY on winrates. I see this is what’s happening. When I say keshiks need a nerf, nobody comes with logical reasoning, or trying to explain with in-game experiences (exception is @JoJo9942 's recent post), but everyone comes with winrates. They think winrates explain why keshik doesn’t need a nerf, while completely not.
Mongols have bad winrates, does this mean mangudie needs a buff? Nope. I guess you also would say no, but you must realise, the keshik is exactly the same case! The difference is that people don’t have much experience with keshiks, and only that is the reason (for the vast majority of the people) why they say keshiks don’t need a nerf.
Mongols and chinese are performing badly according to winrates. Does chu ko nu and mangudie need a buff? According to your explanation: yes.
I recommend you to play some keshiks versus archer civs before saying anything about the keshik
If you read my original post, I only want them nerfed versus archers, not melee units
I recently play a lot with Tatars and Keshik.
The problem of the Keshik is their role. You invest in game for a castle to have cheap cav. But this role can have Knights too. The gold producing does not help in castle age, only late game if gold could be possibly rare. Knights are not cheap but you don’t need to go for stones and they are in castle age immediately available.
Most of the times it’s better to go for cav Archer first instead of Keshik. But problem is they are more expensive than foot Archer and in castle age the enemy may already have 20 foot Archer before you start producing your Archer. The mobility bonus against foot Archer does not really help at all.
Tatars need a buff in some way. A slight buff for feudal age and a buff for late game.
The Keshik might be the most cost effective unit in the game right now. You get 3 keshik for the price of 2 knights. The total cost of a castle + 15 keshik is about the same as 15 knights (ignoring the 2nd stable cost).
Vs 2 stable knights, you will not have higher numbers since 1 castle is about as fast as 2 stables, but you can use the spare resources to get techs, add Eco, go imp, or add support units (monks, skirms, siege…) much faster.
The only problem is getting the castle up, which might not be possible depending on the game / map.
However, a Civ buff is needed before nerfing the keshik.
except I never asked for further buffing Keshiks to improve Tatars, just against nerfing them irrationally without first buffing Tatars somewhere else. You don’t have any proof of them being broken besides that very flawed test that favors melee units over ranged units. According to those tests, TKs are the best units in the game; when are we nerfing them?
3 Likes
Do I really have to provide 100% perfect proofs to support my statements? I did not intend to put that two video in as a proof. I just wanted to show that to some people who didn’t play much with tatars and keshiks, since tatars are a new civ. If you want a good proof then go ahead and play some matches against archer civs with tatars going for keshiks. If you’ve already done that then I’m pretty sure you’d agree with me, atleast on the fact that keshiks are way stronger than should be. If you haven’t then please explain to me why are you taking place in a discussion which is about a topic you’re inexperienced in? I do not want to offend you, I am neither a top 100 player, but if I only have been in less than five games where I execute a certain strategy with a certain civ I do not think it is a good idea for me to take place in the discussion.
Please don’t misunderstand, I do think your opinion is trustable enough, I just don’t understand why are you against nerfing a unit which is not even intended to be the main unit of the civ, just a supporter unit. Tatars should be focusing on army compositions with cavalry archers instead of only keshiks. If tatars become weak then we can buff them later. I do not believe in a system where you counterbalance every change instantaneously, instead they should be looking at each change’s effects on the game.
I think we should view balancing civs and balancing their UUs differently. They are related, obviously. But I don’t think we should look at a low win rate civ and then buff their UU till it’s OP enough to carry them, that just makes the civ more one dimensional and in a sense weakens them.
When you play a UU reliant civ your feudal and castle play is dictated by the need to build a castle, this makes them exploitable since your opponent knows that’s what you have to do. Sure you can buff that UU more so when you get your castle up then you’re guaranteed a win, and maybe that makes the win rate an even 50%: win 100% of the time you get a castle, lose 100% of the time they attack you in feudal. But that’s not really a balanced civ.
So maybe nerf keshiks, while buffing tatars elsewhere (eco bonus preferred).
3 Likes
I believe it’s the opposite: people noticed that it’s cheaper than knights and then assumed that it became crazy OP, since according to waaaay too many players cost effectiveness>the rest, and they ddn’t bother to try it, or to notice that castle production and not so good pop efficiency hinder it.
As far as I know keshiks drop like flies against halbs. And seriously what’s wrong with having an-anti archer cav? Tarkans exist too, and anyway huskarls are better than both at killing archers while having no trash counter.
Except Tatars aren’t UU dependant at all since they are good at using CAs and xbows.
2 Likes
I think it’s a good idea to nerf keshik by raising the gold cost. In complement the steppe lancers should me boosted, not like the initial OP version, but at least it should be made as a situational useful unit.
1 Like