is that you know too little to know that you know so little.
Only on DE I’ve already played close to 1000 ranked games, my 1v1 RM and DM elo is 15xx.
Thanks to you the rest of aoe community makes even more fun out of it than of aoezone.
In my opinion there should be a minimal elo requirement to talk about game balance.
The more you play the more skilled you become the more you understand the balance the more you notice which changes would make the game more optimal.
Hera has said plenty of times on stream that he doesnt think they should focus on balance as he believes most civs are at a good spot right now. Would you take his opinion on it?
This game was left without any updates for several years - which sucked. Now we are getting changes that are implemented without proper testing - see Goths, see Malay - because its on a schedule. I do not mind the updates, but give people enough time to test it. Take proper advice on it.
I agree with you that this forum might not be the best place for it. You drew the line at 15xx because thats where you are. I could draw it at 1650+. Hera might say 2200+. Or we allow everyone to pitch in ideas and promote a healthy environment for discussion - some may call it a forum - and a group of people go through and analyze the sugestions, test it, criticize it and come up with an actual balance patch.
I think the best way to implement balance changes is to trickle them slowly tbh, it feels better than making drastic changes which can have unseen consequences. the balance isn’t perfect but small tweaks are what is needed in my opinion
You don’t seem to trust the forum nor the pros to discuss these changes so what’s the point of posting?
There weren’t many but there have been some big changes still. And anyway not every patch can be a metagame shaker, or else it’s going to be hard to see whether changes did their job or not. Sometimes one month isn’t enough to evaluate the effect of a change, especially for the previous patch, where bugs prevented it from being used for most of BoA 2.
I never drew a specific line, I just said what’s my elo in comparison to the person reading that. I don’t see anyone here revealing their 1v1 RM elo.
I don’t mind if I would be just under the line you made up which would result with my feedback not being taken into account - as long as feedback from more knowledgeable and skilled people is.
I bet he knows more about the game than any of us. I’d be happy to hear his input, when from you I’ve heard enough.
These changes are small because they address specific civs or their units. I don’t argue that all mentioned changes should be implemented at once - they could though. The changes are quite straight-forward, one per each civ, concern specific things. It’s quite obvious if it’s a good direction or not.
When if you were to change archers, knights, skirms, halbs, eagles or militia-line, siege stats - yes, that would be too drastic and would probably require its own patch because of unpredictable results.
Regarding the forum:
I was afraid that there’s too many people that either
want to make unique units mainline (no knights, no archers) or
think that the balance is good as it is or
“this civ/unit is going to be either OP or trash there’s no other way”.
From responses to this thread I noticed that there are many people that know enough about the game.
I trust pros, not all of them though. For instance Hera talks about balance too casually saying “this can be either complete trash or OP, there’s no other way around it” - which is just wrong and leaves you no room to discuss.
He’s one of many so in general I do trust pros more than anyone on this forum including myself. But still I want them to see some good, researched, thoughtful and reasonable options in case they lack imagination themselves.
If they ever see “Improve Celts’ cavalry” proposal they would burst out laughing.
I dont agree with this point. I dont want drastic changes every month. Changing the same civ over and over again by buffing and nerfing and buffing and nerfing isnt great. I much rather have small changes over the time.
This doesnt mean your suggestions are bad. I do like most of your ideas. Some of the civs are already bottom tier for months, without a real buff. I do understand that these civs get buffed.
I definitely agree that the balance changes must be deliberate and thoughtful. The more unknown the situation is the slighter the change should be.
If the fear of negative feedback from community because of overbuffing a civilization or a unit is stopping devs from ever acting or changing anything - that’s far worse. I’d prefer devs to act - make the game interesting.
What we need is a test server. Both for bugs and balance, patches need to be properly tested by a large player base. Instead of pushing out a patch full of bugs and with very debatable blanace changes (remember for example the goth dark age bonus patch?) every month, it would be better to have a good, stable patch every 2-3 months.
We can think about new water bonuses. For example, Byz can have cheaper units upgrades, Malay can have free War Galey upgrade, Portuguese can have boosted HP bonus, someone can have free Shipwright (Turks? Spanish? )…
With all due respect to everyone opinions, but the only REAL and OBJECTIVE evidence to support a buff or debuff to a civilization should be based on win rates.
If you people want to give feedback and what units/civs should be balanced, you should check first how their winrates are. Because i find ridiculous people crying for buffs for goths for example, when they are right now the civ with the highest win rate in the ladder. Seriously people, theres civs which require much more balance than your favorites.
With all due respect to your opinion - people commit their whole lifes playing the game on a highest possible level and making a living out of it - their feedback is the most important.
If you think a little bit about it it’s easily explainable:
too small sample size (there’s only 1,010 games analysed for 1650+ on Arabia divided between 35 civs where some of them are picked much more often than others)
It’s interesting to me as well, so let’s count it:
Goths were played on 1010x2.87%=23.5 Games
Goths won 23.5x53.19=12.5 Games
Teutons were played on 1010x2.87%=29 Games
Teutons won 29x67,24%=19.5 Games (not sure why there are halves there - maybe the data is actually wrong?)
24 and 29 games? to even try and base balance changes based on less than 1000 games is inaccurate as ■■■■.
apart from Arabia people pick civs on certain maps (Goths, Teutons are picked mostly on Arena where they actually exceed)
pros - especially those that stream pick lately changed (buffed/nerfed) civilizations to see how they have changed (due to the fact they are confident players with rating yet unmatching their true skill they easily win these games no matter the opponent’s civ - the sample is from previous Patch: 36906 where Goths and Teutons were freshly upgraded so everyone that felt confident enough played them trying even more than usual to win)
Goths have only 53,19% win rate on Arabia it’s not really as dominant result as you make it to be.
No offense but data is probably correct but your interpretation is wrong. Goths are in the lowest 1v1 Arabia tier and we know it thanks to tournament results and feedback from pros. I experience it in my games as well since I play Random civilizations instead of always picking top tier civs and having zero clue about other civilization such Goths on arabia. Generally people on lower level play so badly against Goths because they never play it themselves so they play standard and let them boom.
I see the Goth buff is being the center of the conv so might as well get in: I assume it would work like the Inca llama and spawn right in the middle of the TC. Goths also happen to be the civ that have the easiest time boar hunting. This bonus would be insanely powerful, and combined with the 6 militia drushed it would reach obscene levles of OPness.