I donāt think that this game will turn into AoE 2 with some nerfs. And I reckon some of the asymmetry has to go in favor of balance but I would think that they would only nerf key aspects as a last ditch effort. With the nerfs coming next week the meta will hopefully shift and they can really start to finetune the balance.
I generally do not like the idea of nerf whatever strong, iād prefer to buff whatever is week. Nerfing too much is making the game boring.
Especially i hope all civ specific feature can be strong in their own way.
Nerfing things could make a strategy dissapear, but buffing weak thing could create more strategy, more active counterplay, which means more fun.
Most of these suggestions are just aiming to make every civ less unique. Sounds like he wants to turn this game into Aoe2 with 50x the same civ with just a few bonuses. Sounds terrible, thats not why I bought the game. Go play Aoe2 if you want that.
Yes French and Mongols are OP and they need a nerf. But why is he asking for Chinese nerfs already? Makes no sense, they JUST got buffed and bugfixed and there are still remaining bugs to be fixed. And no one has used Chinese with any success in competitive play, in fact Chinese has almost not been used at all in competitive play for good reason up until this patch.
There are no nerfs for English. Why? He wants to make everything closer to English by reducing the bonuses and not nerf English? Sounds like he is biased. English deserve nerfs aswell.
If you read it correctly, it also says that the extra Landmarks of each age are cheaper, so it is a buff on the one hand and a nerf on the other.
Some of you have an important anger at AoE2, I partly understand it because there are players from 2 who have mistreated other games in the franchise, but it does not justify saying that the civs will be like AoE2 because that will not be like that or nerfing all the civis at minimum.
They dont need to. They are the aggressors. Absolute no point in picking Mongols, an aggressive civilization that powerspikes early on, to play the late game. Thats a fail on strategic choice and civs have different strengths and flaws.
Mongols strengths far outnumber their flaws. You just decided to play to their flaws for some reason.
It gets boring real fast when 1-2 civs dominate. No point in having another 6 unique civs if they are not played because they are weak.
Balance is required in the long run and balancing 8 very asymmetrical civs is probably not doable⦠I mean, the most popular RTS games such as SC/WC only had 3⦠AoM only had 3⦠AoT had 4 and it was already very problematic.
nope, AOE 2 already available if you want to play AOE 2 go play thats stop bothering AOE 4 players. All problems will be sorted if Esports stars go back to AOE 2, Leave AOE 4 players to enjoy their little game.
Network of castles relies on static buildings, a friendly army nearby, and it relies on the enemy choosing that engagement.
I havenāt seen network of castles exploited effectively like this. Sounds good on paper though.
And by the time they get 50%, you can trash towers instantly with artillery outside of the range of network of castles. Basically nullifies network of castles excluding the Berkshire Palace which has high range.
Eqrly in the game you can use it building those outpost in a forest with an army to defend it, then the enemy would try to take it down and they would defend it, and little by little they end up eating your territory.
It doesnāt always work but Ichave seen this tactic several times.
Network of castles is 100 wood to buff your entire army. This is nothing. You can have this active anywhere on the map. And you can ugprade towers too to act like 0 supply Springalds.
Its a crazy buff and imo it should be nerfed somewhat, atleast the castle Age upgrade shouldnāt be 50% attack speed bonus.
Yeah, itās a civ bonus, and the enemy still has to walk into it, and if theyāre doing that they think they have the advantage, which means they probably do. They can pick where they are going to attack. The bulk of your army canāt be everywhere at once.
English mid to late game seems fine. It was early game where they were very strong, and thatās because of their aggression and their early units, not network of castles.
I still havenāt seen a significant amount of games where Iād say network of castles won the game though.
lb campfires were nerfed, lb ram rush was nerfed. Letās see how this plays out.
Many good improvements but i think the key goal needs a countinues patch policy so there is room for Adaption.
Furthermore hotfixes need to change gamebreaking stuff to the last good state if possible and this right away.
About the balance the key goal of aoe 4 is to have differnt civs in a unique way this also need a lot of Manpower behind it as well
maybe there is a way to generate more money to cover more staff behind it maybe like a cosmetic system etc. It feels like they are trying really hard but there are many different Bugs and balance issues too many for the current team. Or maybe my feeling is wrong
But keep in mind that aoe2 had almost 20 years put in seems like a wrong thing to compare it 1 to 1
Otherwise, if players age up fastly, your enemy just get to the sacret sites the same time as you, without wasting time or resources to get there.
Maybe just increase the research time on Sancitiy.
I think, for many of his suggestions it almost feels like he likes to ask for too much, to invite a better compromise.