Again: Then give me the correct graphics please and point out where the math is off. I am glad to learn from you. I havent seen any proof from your side at all. Only thing i see is that you call number of vills that are just in line with the graph, given your own assumptions. So please enlight me.
Can you also explain how to counter some big push in early castle age from the enemy when playing as Cumans? Seems like you complete neglict military in your build. So when your enemy is in castle age and starts his push, it seems like you dont have any military at all. Making military would also delay your own castle age, which means you have to fight with feudal army against castle age army for a bit longer. I havent seen your explanation for how to defend against such push at all.
I think you guys are missing an important issue here. Cuman boom is good, yes. And itâs better then a normal FC boom, yes.
But thereâs a trade off. Cumans have to invest a lot of resources and stay in feudal. They invest heavy into full wall, 2nd TC, farms, and 2 tc vil production.
The way to beat it isnât to FC and out boom. Itâs to FC and (to quote MEMB.TV) âPu-pu-pu-pussh!â The advantage of castle age isnât just extra TCs itâs the military tech advantages of knights, siege, xbows, castles, etc.
I have a sneaking suspicion that even if Viper directly comments on Cuman feudal boom issue these guys wonât be happy either way. At this rate they just want a nerf.
There are many topics which TriRem (who isnât a dev, but is a major balance key because of his experience) dismissed with logic. Yet the OP and their followers decided that was not enough to rethink about their ideas
SotL brought this up in his video and I reiterated this trade-off multiple times, but these guys stick to their â+50 vilâ argument saying it is impossible for other players to beat Cuman because of these vils produced during feudal.
I am not sure what they are believing at this point, and I start to question the source of their arguments. Maybe nerfing the feudal TC construction time to the same of building a wonder would make them happy.
The thing is, game is played by all kinds of people. Some can be super creative while others prefer standard games. Both are perfectly fine and should not be criticised solely on that ground. Then, because of the way players approach civs and bonuses, buff/nerf becomes a thing. IMO, a perfectly balanced game should demonstrate as little bias to match win rate as possible across as many settings as possible, while pleasing the largest portion of players. It is very difficult to strike such a balance, and exactly why applying âone size fits allâ is almost always a terrible idea.
Letâs see how dev deals with this Cuman bonus in the future patches.
But that doesnât change the fact that heâs the most popular AOE2 youtuber ever and he knows a lot of mechanics, anyway not all of his stats are accuarte and apply to a real game.
You made a good explanation of my question. I fully agree. Playing against Cumans just means being aggressive in early castle age if they go for the 2 TC boom. You have to adapt to every civ match up, so this is just one way in which you need to adapt to the civ of the enemy.
It is not about nerf it, it is about preventing the next potential arambai meme strategy, something really easy to perform and very effective, the difference is that cuman allows you to have better economy making it more powerful.
Any pro knows how strong it can be, they donât come here saying âit is ok broâ âonly 3 vills leadâ âeasy to counterâ, they know that if they let the cuman player boom they are dead simply as that, the difference is that not everyone is good as them at rushing, positions and certain maps will allow the cuman player to boom during 20 minutes and get an unfair advantage, that only 4 tcs boom scenario can counter, which outside boom maps is uncommon.
With a huge skill difference and in a tournament, that is the thing. If it was in random streamer moment, that wouldnât be as valid as i take it from. That is why the best players are decided from there and not entirely from the ladder.
I have no idea why that matters in the context. IF HE was thinking that he was losing and said âok lets go anyway thisâ, it means that build has a chance to win, with a high risk but high reward. In fact we saw it almost winning. This is though , a goth TC rush that has no bonus on the TC. And btw, just because you call it Troll, it doesnât mean it automatically becomes. I understand it lost, in fact, i am saying all the time, it almost won but what you fail to grasp, as i rewrite, is that Goth have no bonus for it. No fast wood cutting, no faster building time, no tc costing less, no tc double hp. They almost won with no bonus.
Again, just because Viper titles his videos like this, it doesnât mean they are less valid as a strategy. Hoang rush is used but 99% of you would say it was a trash strategy before it actually beat pros.
I donât know why you keep bringing elo this and elo that as that is the only metric to judge how someone can think of the game. If that was the case, the balance team in ANY game should just be the pros, while that is not the case. Believe or not, people can think. I donât judge people opinion on their elo, and i never said to you â you are 800 eloâ too. The few people to bring elo on any conversation in this forum are the one i mentioned and there is a good reason for it.
I am not comparing my self to the Viper. I am comparing some peoples mind in the forum really.
Also, ignorancy is not an insult. If you call me an ignorant in bikes, you will be right. I have no clue what type of bikes are there and others things regarding bikes as well. Simple minded is because your view is already established and fixed, so it is impossible to change, except something you want.
What Iâve seen on forums for multiple games is there are two common behaviours relating to the meta:
People who identify the meta in a game, and use it to maximise their performance.
People who identify the meta in a game, refuse to use it, and demand that it must be nerfed.
Of those in 2, because they refuse to use it, they may overestimate the extent to which itâs the meta, because they constantly attribute their losses to other people using the meta that they refuse to use themselves. I suspect a factor in this is theyâd rather have an excuse for losing than give their best effort to winning, still lose, and have to admit they just werenât good enough.
You logic is valid but unfortunately, it applies when there are things that are too strong too. Following it, people should play that only but it isnât always the case. People used to play cumans, but also other civs, when there were broken (with even faster TC or even back then, with steppe lancers), your logic would have said the same in those cases.
I also have bias. My nerf to the tatar cav archer is one of the case. Their cav archer are op regarding other cav archer and their counters in hills but as a general civ, they really arenât great but if they recieve some kind of buff in the future, the cav archer on hills might need to be revised.
Note that I said they may overestimate the extent to which itâs the meta, not that they always overestimate the extent to which itâs the meta. There are definitely some things in some games that are pretty broken. There are some things in AoE II DE that I would totally agree need addressing, there are some combinations of maps and strats that give players a close to 100% win rate, even though they are above their correct ELO and have a <50% win rate on other maps with other strats. But the Cumans 2 TC feudal boom isnât one of them, as far as I have seen. Have you tried to exploit it yourself, and if so, how far above what you see as your true ELO did it take you?
