I think that although 100% balance is not possible, it is true that if a council of voluntary and known players take the reins of it it could be much better.
thats privately already happening, there are certain top players that provide direct feedback
1 Like
I donāt quite agree. About the game balance, I only trust statistic, not opinion leaders.
The final goal is to let all civs have a 50% win rate against any civ in all game modes and in the games of all skill levels, so I think it should be like this:
If a civ has a low win rate in high-level games, buff the civ.
If a civ has a low win rate in low-level games, make the civ easier to play.
And only the developers have the long-term data of the games of different skill levels, So I trust the developerās decision moreā¦
In addition, I think the top priority now should be fixing the hidden glitches that are not known to novices.
(Like the 7 Settlers Mill. I was shocked and didnāt understand why this had not been fixed yet when I knew this.).
4 Likes
i agree, but with balance range of 45% to 55%, which the devs already follow
3 Likes
Nothing in this life could prepare me for what the āunlessā was gonna beā¦
3 Likes
It is not only balance between civilizations, there are tactics that have been overnerfed and are not used in competitive. The Spanish logistician, cowboy rush, ā¦
2 Likes
Even StarCraft (and SCII) and Warcraft III have issues balancing their races. The only way to have a truly balanced game is having almost completely symmetric civs, like in Warcraft I and Warcraft II.
2 Likes
Yes, I only say that balance would be better with a council of players. I never said that balance would be 100%
The game no need to be perfect balance and all of us know it is impossible.
But I donāt want always ONLY Sweden or Port or Lakota (for example) can enjoy the top tier or can have unbeatable unit.
3 Likes
A council of PvP players was brought in to help make AoE4. With their input I assume, AoE4 became the most boring RTS in this franchise, with everything being almost symmetric, just visually different. At this point, none of the unique units in AoE4 are even viable.
In my opinion, a council of players does not necessarily help the game. Youād have balance freaks who would nerf every cheese strat and eventually every civ will feel like it has a certain meta.
14 Likes
we could make quite a list with those, thing is, only the tactics that were abused badly enough got those sorts of nerfs, based on observation
Ehmmm not the Same.
Are you saying that if an AoE3 players council that meets just to make balance changes would do something like AoE4?
can we at least agree that if the game was better balanced it would be better?
2 Likes
highly likely, those players do after all like to force their preference in, i prefer the developers doing their objectively third party judgement on balance, as for how aoe4 turned out, competitive 1v1 players being the only group catered to shows in all aspects of that game, not just balancing
my definition of balanced, have a clear strenght to each faction, most already do, some more some less, make em excel in different scenarios, ofc iām not a fan of nerfing certain tactics to the ground either, i prefer the old school subtle approach to it
Devs many times have no time yo play so much and their changes are not accurate. See for example the last hackapell.
One player can have his preferences, but a council of players would be the best thing that would happen at AoE3 balance.
well, we donāt have access to the match data they do, and besides, there are some 2K ranks in dev team, i donāt remember exact names, but there are about 2 at least
also on council idea, as said prior, pros already provide their thoughts to the balance team and as mentioned above, 2 or so are even part of the balance team
so no, they donāt lack data or playtime, its just that their judgement doesnāt match our thinking 100%
Bingo! I coudnāt have said it better. I was always kind of disapointed that, whenever we got a new DLC, the single player content was really scarce. Even if it would result in delays, Iād much rather have a DLC with more SP content then just 3 Historical Battles.
4 Likes
Please read my first post. I didnt say that all the members of the council were pros.
Devs ONLY have acces to win ratio. When for example a tactic or a unit is overnerfed and isnt meta anymore, if the win-ratio dont be affected, they dont Buff It again.
neither did i, devs have to view bigger picture after all, smt brought up few times, in interviews
and dw, i did read your every single post
but yes, more sp content is always most welcome, would love even just more historical battles, but really, we need more campaigns, we know this gameās editor can handle it, tools are there, we just need microsoft to push for it, like in aoe2