and how often does that happen? and as you point out he was massively ahead to pull that off. he was literally a thousand points ahead. in castle age. that game was already over.
so if its rare why do we need to nerf it? if a person can achieve that they should be rewarded.
once again, the reward is the gold trinkle from relics, no need to give them +4 as well.
Maybe even give them another tiny bonus instead and/or remove the +150 starting food;) Because these bonuses like “+100 wood”, “+100 gold”, “+150 food” are kinda bad imo…though i would not delve much deeper into that, only my opinion and i might be terribly wrong here:)
1 Like
Burgundians are weak, the only buff that could save tham is one that they will never recieve: Acses to bloodlines. Sicilians on the other hand are good knight civ in castle age and if u get overwhelmed by pikes u can always do first crusade and push your enemy this way, and scutage in imp is helpful if u want to get some trash killers such as champs or searjants out to deal with enemy army so that is ok. I think that rlly what sicilians are missing is the fact that they are based on light cav and cavalier in imp and weak skirms which in castle isnt that big of a deal but in imp is what keeps tham back from winning a game
thats a reward everyone else gets as well, lithuanians are balanced around a bonus that gives them extra for relics. so again. why should that bonus be nerfed? by your logic, the bonus being the gold trickle, then i guess you should tell the other players to start going after relics and stop letting lithuanians get 4 relics.
and what bonus would that be? because that starting food is their only eco bonus in teh game.
for the 50th time - to prevent the unnecessary snowball situations in castle age even though those are rare.
i don’t know what would work best, proper testing would be necessary. Maybe
bring back leitis pierce armor, right now they are not viable at all compared to paladin + stables and/or barracks could be cheaper
and again - if they get 4 relics, they are already snowballing. even in that game you just linked the lithuanian player was 1k score ahead at the time. he played better. better play should be rewarded.
if you seriously can’t prevent someone from getting 4 relics you deserve whats coming.
do you know how big a nerf this would be to lithuanians? there only eco advantage they have is removed completely? they would instantly become a bad civ. it is literally the only eco bonus they have. if you want proof about how bad this would be - go look at all the best civs, what do they all have? some form of early eco bonus. Persians lost 5% tc advantage in the dark age and went from being an auto pick to a mid tier, despite their bonus starting in feudal.
80% of the forum was complaining about Leitis being broken and was adressed, plus is an UU that deal very high damage so should be weaker vs arrows, like Cataphracts.
of course i might be terribly wrong, hence i said that i didn’t know, especially without proper testing. But since you are the “winrate” kind of person, check out Lithuanian winrate in early game - very high, but it really drops in midgame (when actually stable and barracks cost matter a lot), therefore this idea, have you considered that?
no point to argue even about the slightest of changes with someone who never relents with their own opinion.
fair point, maybe even increasing the gold cost closer to paladin levels, but bringing back the pierce armor would be fair, who knows;) (fyi, the lithuanian winrate hasn’t changed much after the patches, and it was about 50% even pre-nerf…yet leitis still got nerfed)
do you know why it drops off in the mid game? they have 1 real military bonus. their relic bonus.
but you remove that early game extra food without some sort of compensatory early game eco bonus and lithuanians would instantly become a very bad civ.
25% (FA), 35% (CA) and 50% (IA) (or like that) cheaper barracks/archery ranges/stables would be a much much more suitable and better bonus both for early and mid game, overshadowing even the early +150 food (which actually excels on hybrid maps only, or for the super early drush that does not work that well anymore).
As well as removing the wood bonus from Persians, but bringing back the TC work rate.
I’d rather have the extra food over cheaper buildings.
Those cheaper buildings gonna save you maybe 105 wood by caetle age. Meanwhile thd food is a lot more versatile and allows you options like faster drush, fast dock on hybrid maps, or just aging up faster.
and yet, it still does NOTHING in mid game and the early bonus is neglectable at the very least.
If you go 2 baracks and 2 stables (or 2 barracks and 2 archery ranges, whatever…), the bonus is quite large, or you can lay down extra farms. With cheaper production buildings, you can even sneak vills with more ease, and it would be available permanently, not just at the beginning.
It’s not negligible at all. Yeah the long term value is minor but it gives you the boost you need to get through the early stages of the game.
Your bonus does not and leaves lithuanians hugely disadvantaged.
In most games you save 70 wood before you hit castle with your bonus. Enough wood for 1 farm. That isn’t going to offset what is lost.
Dont look winrates at TG, if both team have 1 lithuanian it will always be “balanced”, and the more players in both sides more likely to happen
lithuanians playrates to have that be the case would have to be something like 25%. seeing as that isn’t the case…
-
Every game with 1 lith in both team is extremely ideal situation that wont happen
-
Other EXTREME possible situation is that they get 1% pickrate, but they are in both team 100% of the times and it would explain the 50% winrate. (But would be a lot less extreme than your 25% pickrate)
-
Maybe I used the wrong words, I was trying to focus that you should not rely on TG winrates (not only liths ones) because you have many games with X civ in both teams… thats one of the reasons the TG winrate spread is lower than in 1v1