here’s the problem - Arabia is the standard. every civ should be at least passable on Arabia, and Tatars were not. if civs excel on maps outside of Arabia, i’m fine with that, because those maps don’t see much play.
but frankly, even KotD3 Arabia had a large number of hills. and guess what? tatars were nowhere to be seen
and fyi - the recent buff should make Tatars actually a pretty solid Arena civ, go look at the video above about there boom. and that was without practicing the build.
They are still bottom-tier, because they have no answer vs Siege civs.
After trying them I have to say the gap they jumped from a bad civ to a decent was a big one maybe that’s the reason people are overlooking them too much, is not like other civs don’t have a stronger eco bonus, they have now an above average feudal thanks to the extra sheep and that is good, that said the thing i heavily disagree on is giving them sheep under the new tc’s in castle age maybe that’s too much.
you’re projecting. your premise is based entirely on your opinion, and while you are entitled to it, it means absolutely nothing to me when I disagree with it, as I do.
if what you said had any credibility whatsoever, the indians shore fish rate wouldn’t have been nerfed. they were because what you have claimed has zero roots in reality. we balance for all maps, not just arabia, regardless of what you might think. further, we shouldn’t balance for map homogeneity because that’s an absolutely foolish proposal if you care at all about map variety, as you should if you’re playing AOE 2. these two principles of design cut across one another and your projection as to what you think matters in the game means absolutely nothing to me whatsoever, so park your “every civ” nonsense in discussion because it’s abject bullshit.
lastly. the Tatars were far from being bad on arabia, ever. having bad matchups against some of the best and most popular arabia civs is an extremely hard barrier to break in matchmaking where you don’t know what your opponent will play pre-pick. it’s an equally hard barrier to break in tournaments where you need to draft civs that play well on the maps afforded and when that one map is arabia you’ll see an extreme damper on civ diversity. the Tatars were far from the only civ lacking picks in KOTD and that has way more to do with a lack of map / civ counterpick options than a lack of civ strength.
I wouldn’t go that far. Their anti-siege isn’t great, I’ll certainly give you that, but they get excellent trebs. their main thing lost on Arena is definitely no hills. I think in the early and mid imperial age the Tatars are actually slightly above average on arena but they fall off once the big upgrades come in. they’ll have a reasonable eco getting there.
1 Like
the fact that the devs buffed Tatars despite you believing they were a solid civ not needing any buffs lends credibility to my argument.
3 Likes
No, trebs don’t kill Siege Onagers or Siege Rams.
Huns and Tatars are the civs with no answer vs Siege civs on Arena. No Infantry, No BBC, No good Monks.
At least Tatars have Onagers and strong eco.
1 Like
Sorry, but thats just plain wrong. Arabia IS the standard map.
The most common tournament setting is to start with arabia and let loosers pick maps afterwards.
The most played 1v1 map is arabia, by FAR.
The most played teamgame map is arabia.
One of the most important tournaments this year was EXCLUSIVELY played on arabia.
Now, you can like arabia or you can dislike it. But you cant deny its the standard map and everything else is seen as special in one way or another. You wont say “Arabia is special, there is barely any water”, instead you say “4lakes is special, because fish and pond control is really important”. Standards are not opinions.
Arabia is the most popular map. Every set of tournament play has at least one game on Arabia besides Arena tournaments, basically. That does not make it “The standard map” because there is no standard map. The people making tournaments, the designers of the game, have not set a map to be the “standard” so again, literally anything you say on the subject is 100% projection and you may sit your projection to the sidelines while making an argument because it is baseless.
Arabia is the most popular map not the “standard” and any attempts to conflate these two terms is intellectually dishonest.
I know, that’s why I said they were above average in early imperial due to a solid eco and strong trebs, namely if you get into a treb war. Their strength slides once the post-imp upgrades hit (paladin, SO) but they aren’t “bottom-tier” on arena as you initially stated. I don’t get why you even bothered to remind the discussion that SO kills trebs. That doesn’t contradict anything I said previously nor does it add anything to the discussion I hadn’t already covered.
No, it lends credibility to the fact that they care about overall play rate. Every civ that got nerfed had a very high play rate (aztec, maya, viking, goth) and practically every civ that got buffed had a very low play rate. Play rate indicates nothing more than play rate, I’ve been having discussions with people on the forums for months now who have tried to make the argument that a low play rate is an indicator of weakness and had zero statistical data to back it up, because, well, there’s a low play rate.
Lack of evidence for something is not evidence no matter how hard you argue otherwise and any contradictions to the sort is pure nonsense. There was not enough evidence to rule on the strength of the Tatars and I hold that their best maps where they were most potent (acropolis, gold rush/pit) have not been heavily played or represented in the map rotation, which is a big problem with their play and win rate as those are their best maps, bar none.
It would be clear to anyone not harboring a bias on the discussion that this change was seeking to remedy the low play rate and actually acquire data on the civ. If they agreed with you they would have done a lot more.
~250 food per TC dropped is a nice bonus, however sheep gathers slightly slower than farms. It’s not realistically going to increase your food income, rather (as it always has for Tatars) it’s going to relax the wood constraints on your builds. That might mean one or two more production buildings, or maybe an earlier university (probably what the devs were thinking). Does that mean more actual production? Maybe. It depends on how much extra you can wring out of those early savings to pump units. It might. We don’t know yet. My feelings from testing it is, not really.
When I’m playing open, it’s just another safe food source that allows me to keep villagers safe off the range-able farms pretty efficiently, as I’m already on farms when I drop a boom TC and the sheep really don’t contribute a lot. When I’m playing closed, it generally just means even more wood savings as I can click off heavy plow a lot quicker.
The fact that this is one of the most non-standard buffs serves my point, not yours. The point I’ve been making since the beginning of people complaining about the Tatars. We don’t have enough evidence. They are putting out a weird civ bonus that is hard to quantify to hopefully spike the play rate and get an actual feel as to where the civ sits. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume they wanted to give them this to make them good on Arabia. If they wanted to make the Tatars good on Arabia, there’s a lot of things that take precedent over having sheep in Castle age. So in short:
You’re projecting. Leave your opinions as to what should matter for balance at the door when you come in.
1 Like
The one who is beeing intellectually dishonest is you. “Standard” and “most popular” are not mutually exclusive terms. Quite the contrary, usually something becomes a standard because it is popular.
Now, what is a standard and why is Arabia the standard map? The standard is the usual case; the thing that is assumed to be the framework if no framwork was defined; the baseline everything gets compared to etc.
And its really easy to see how Arabia fits into this description: Arabia is one of the few maps the devs decide to be in every rotation; its the first map in the map selection menu; the map pros make exclusive tier lists for; the map we use as comparison to describe other maps.
4 Likes
No, what I’ve said is precisely on the money.
Literally any map could have been the most popular map just because people at the top liked it and decided to play it a ton. The fact that it is the most popular map is a result of player preference. The players like it, the reason why the tournaments run it is precisely that. Everyone’s familiar with Arabia. As such, there is expected to be minimal map favoritism and maximum map familiarity, meaning an even game assuming the skills to be equal.
You would argue, then, that Mongolia is the standard map if the pros decided, today, to quit playing arabia altogether and start playing a different map, and that was the map they decided to start playing? Be honest. The reason you’d call Arabia the standard map is simply because you’ve gotten used to it. It’s a map everyone knows, and it’s the most popular map. That second bit, is by far the most important factor. Everyone knows Black Forest pretty well but that hasn’t made it the “other standard.”
Edit: The fact of the matter is, this is semantics. Semantics that can be avoided by using terms that are accurate rather than using loaded terms that need to be defeated before an argument can be had. Regardless of what your definition of standard is, Arabia is the most popular map. That is an unambiguous, unloaded term that doesn’t carry any official weight or any status. If you wanted to have an honest discussion on the topic without being weighed down by nonsense, you’d pick that term.
2 Likes
Yeah i agree they were good and i said this in my post, but my topic was if they should buff them, then the worst thing is buff them with food that they actually very strong with food eco, to be honest i have a feeling 100% in the next update they will remove this buff, but not completely, i think they will remove the 2 sheeps under every TC in castle age and they will keep the 2 sheeps in feudal, but i still with you, even the 2 sheeps no need for them
You would argue, then, that Mongolia is the standard map if the pros decided, today, to quit playing arabia altogether and start playing a different map, and that was the map they decided to start playing?
So if Mongolia was the standard map, would i admit it was the standard map? ofc i would, what the hell even is that question?
Ofc, Mongolia would never, even if there was a huge conspirancy, instantly become the new standard. Standards always take time to develop and get accepted. Time Arabia has had.
Tatars are trash on Arena early Imp . They die to 26 minute Siege Ram + Halberdier. 3TC faster Imp Timurid Siegecraft won’t kill that.
So you’re conflating “standard” and “most popular.”
You do realize standard is a setting in AOE 2 games, yes? The settings that have standard settings are defaulted to them, and are listed as such. That’s why I’m making this point. Standard is a specific term and arabia does not fit the description of the term. It fits the description of "most popular map* which is something nobody would contest and isn’t loaded so I fail to understand why you need to conflate these terms needlessly.
Sure, possibly. They get onagers with Siege Engineers, so you’re underestimating the resistance the Tatars can muster against it for one, but even if they would die to it clean, half of all civs cannot manage that composition. Just under half the civs have both Siege ram and Halb, and that’s not counting Siege engineers or any of the Halb upgrades (khmer lacking squires as a prime example).
Further, one of those civs that can manage that composition, is the Tatars. Turns out it’s probably going to be dependent on what civ you’re up against as to whether or not Siege rams can kill you.
It’s almost like I’ve claimed that they are “above average” in early imp, and turns out, just about half (the average) of the civs don’t get that thing you’re claiming is a problem for them. Maybe I’ve chosen my words carefully and correctly? TBH, it’s all bluster since the Eagle civs / huskarl are the real problem, not some siege push. They are pretty weak against massed siege (who isn’t, really) but that’s not the Achilles heel you claim it to be.
Maybe flaming camel should be their answer against siege…
doubt it would work - flaming camels are already proven cost effective, and that was even before the buff that happened to them, people just don’t like using suicide units too much.
I think they could be available in castle age, and timurid siege craft could reduce their prize or increase their speed, and then would be nice as a suicide unit
this forum needs some way to downvote. this buff is amazing, and fits the pastoril theme of the tatars.
And this downvoting feature can be abused to hell. I doubt it will be added.
1 Like
bringing a polemic title is also abused as hell.
1 Like