Its been a month since the DLC release. We had a patch a few days ago but this is still just out of control. The insane unbalance of the new civs makes the game so boring and unplayable.
Please take a look at the clip below: that fight was the first one we had in feudal, 16 minutes into the game. As you can see, I shot JD like 7-8 times (if not more) with around 50 archers. and still she does not die. As such, I spent all that fight trying to kill the hero, didnt succeed and my opponent wiped half of my army.
Was there any skill involved in my opponents gameplay to win that battle? Nothing aside of moving JD around and clicking “Q”.
My question here. Is this the kind of RTS we will be developing in the coming patches and DLCs? It seems like there is no need to take care of macro or micro anymore. We just develop civs which give us resources for free, military units for free, op units (like JD), passive income, etc. Like, where is the risk and reward for taking good strategic decisions, having a high apm to keep up with production and fight at the same time? In my opinion, AoE 4 is evolving towards some sort of “Clash of Clans” game where we barely care about the macro economy aspect and everything is focused on having as many free and easy stuff as possible and sooner and close the game before the 20 minute mark.
On a side note, here JDs winning rates.
Im kindly asking, does it really take that much effort to release a small patch to fix the civ? Do we really have to be waiting another 2 months for this to get balanced?
While Jeanne is a bit overtuned as a civ currently, this is also a huge misplay. If Jeanne hits lvl 3 in feudal, you can’t be fighting her with an army of archers (you probably can’t fight her outside of your base at all in feudal if she is lvl 3 unless maybe you are a knight civ and ahead), the arrows do 1 damage. Using archers to defeat lvl 3 Jeanne is like sending an army of spearmen to try and fight odachi samurai or having archers try and kill mangonels without being in spread formation.
Tbh that fight probably could have been won if the archers just killed all of the knights first. All Jeanne did was tank arrows and do half hp to about 7 archers, she didn’t kill anything. If the rest of the army was focused, she would be all alone before she was able to use her ability again.
Lvl 3 Jeanne gets her health doubled form lvl 2, she also gets 3 extra ranged armor and takes half damage from arrows before calculating armor. It’s the biggest problem with the civ is it basically just wins if she hits 3 before castle age (though the civ is kind of meh if she doesn’t)
As numbers and professional players say: jeanne is freaking overtuned and op.
Forcing fights and getting lvl 3 with jeanne is easy, and as you said, lvl 3 jeanne in feudal means free win, specially against civs who doesn’t have armored units in feudal.
The hero completely break the game balance and the rock paper scissor mechanic. It must be changed to something similar to khan.
While Jeanne is currently a bit overtuned, it’s not drastically so.
Pro players also are saying Jeanne is not OP (though she is overtuned at every level below pro play). You can see this from Beasty videos for example or the latest tournament. She was not highly prioritized by any of the pro players, she was virtually unbanned and performed merely average. Overall, she was treated by pros as a mid-high tier civ at the pro player level, somewhere hovering around being a top 5 civ, but not quite there, certaintly regarded below civs like Zhu Xi (also broken), Malians, Ottomans and Mongols.
Ottomans actually were like 3 or 4-0 against Jeanne in the tourneys so far despite them being from before Jeanne’s small nerf.
The main issue with Jeanne is that it only takes 1 misplay and you basically lose in feudal. You can beat her by getting to castle without falling too far behind, or by massing enough archers to just kill her at lvl 2 (less ranged armor than a normal MAA, so it’s very doable). However all it takes is 1 misplayed fight and suddenly she’s level 3 and you are basically doomed.
For me AoE 4 is mutating into AoE 3 with all that… and I do think that they have to nerf JD and Zhu Xi a little so that they don’t break the balance with the whole game…
Because since JoanD’Arc is a “new” and recently tested civ, it may have a hidden weakness, or a bonus that no one has noticed until now, as happened with the Mali (who only became good a few months after they came out), so its playstyle is not completely explored.
On the other hand, those who are WINNING by using that civ and exploiting its abilities and mechanics would be very upset if the civ were nerfed overnight without warning. At least with the nerf of Boar gaining XP something was done.
Maybe the devs could consider increasing the XP for your 4th stage, but for that you would have to study all of JoanD’Arc games and see what would be acceptable to balance and that it would be better not to touch so that the essence of the Civ is maintained.
On the other hand, there is the question of whether the problem is that Juana is broken, or the rest of the other civ are very weak. Since the 4th season, the solution to the appearance of Mali as one of the best civs was not a nerf, but rather an upgrade of the rest of the civs, which adjusted the balance, “Giving new units or unique technologies to several civs or improving the effect of its Landmarks”. However, for this solution we would have to wait for the 7th season, since the models and the code do not create themselves.
The 4th level is not why Jeanne is good at all. The reason Jeanne is so dominant is because she can frequently hit level 3 in mid-feudal, and the game basically ends because of that. The game rarely gets to the point that Jeanne needs level 4 anyways.
Mali also got multiple repeated nerfs before they were taken out of the top civs. In particular nerfs to farimba, cattle and warrior scouts.
Before Mali was good, they also received significant buffs to cattle, warrior scouts, pit mine gold generation, house hp and other parts of the civ.
Sorry but the things I bold in your reply has no sense.
First, they designed the civ, so they know which are the weakness and the strongs of the civ. Second, they already nerfed very hard japanese, and done noticeable changes to bizantines. With that argument, they shouldn’t have to nerf any of the other civs.
And last, “those who are exploiting its abilities” really? So something is apparently broken, and devs have to care to the people who is abusing it? Hilarious…
Well, in the games in which he reached the 4th level, yes it is OP, but if you are referring to the majority of ranked 1vs1 that last less than 30 minutes, then the solution would be that it takes more EXP to reach the 3rd level apart. of the 4th. I was just giving ideas, any others are welcome.
What bold? The thing that I say about people LIKE winning with JoanD’Arc civ? Oh right, because NO ONE is happy playing and winning with Joan, and when i say winning, like WINNING A LOT (Sarcasm). Nah, if you lost to her civ, I don’t feel sorry for you.
Nah, the creators are not omniscient, balance and patches exist for a reason. If the devs knew that certain civs were going to be broken or there was an imbalance, they would not make changes every so often, or would even retract their changes in a single later patch (Great Bombard population: 4 → 3 → 4 again).
Nah, nerfing something doesn’t justify not nerfing something else, unless you specifically want something to be nerfed and complain about it not being nerfed the way you want, but that is a personal desire not a rule. I refuse to discuss emotional arguments.
I don’t think it’s really “hilarious” if it hurts you so much that they didn’t nerf her like they expected. I say again, I refuse to discuss emotional comments or pathetic sarcasm.
Your entire post was a criticism of everything I wrote in another post. Did you think I wasn’t going to take my time to answer you again? If you have no way to refute what I say, you simply can’t refuse my arguments or you don’t care.
Say I’m biased? I can also write the same:
“Your whole post is a pathethic accusations based on a based in a biased emotions aggainst a civ, joanka93val”.
Did you see? When your last argument is an insult, it means that you have no arguments. And I make it clear that it was not me who suggested reducing the Juana civ to her unit being a copy of the Mongol Khan, it was you:
Who is the one who has something against a certain civ? I don’t, but you do. Good luck with that.
Well, I’m not the one who blammed first a post because it was pathetic and “emotional”
By the way, if you cannot face others people opinions in a public forum it’s your problem, and checking your others posts I can see it’s your modus operandi.
Meanwhile, let’s balance civs based in people happiness yeah, let’s make Ozutsu immortal or give longbows 50 range so english people it’s happy shooting from their warm base
You are the one who started the discussion by quoting my topic and making fun of my argument. You already have a whole history of being dismissive of other people’s comments not only in this post but in others, so I already want to assume that it is part of personality, but it is not good at all.
And the worst thing is that you keep making fun. Simply if you don’t want conflicts, don’t start them, no one forces you to quote others or make fun of them, but you do it because of a hobby of yours, and no one is going to take you seriously for that.
The topic is about the balance of the game, but if your solution is to create conflict with someone who does not share your opinion, (although the truth is at this point you are just insulting randomly), there is nothing to discuss, you yourself ruin the topic, and no one are going to debate anything with you because they already know what you are like, good luck with that.
