My question arises because I’ve been following the forums for a fair amount of time and my perception is that the vast majority of the suggestions posted on this forum, even the most supported and original ones, do not see the light of day into the game, not even as an experiment for one patch. I feel like the only change from here that I’ve seen, is regarding Sweden being too OP or not OP enough.
It is pretty disheartening to me, specially when the developers keep saying in every update to stay engage and participate on the forums because they are always listening.
This is of course, only my perception, and I’m more than happy to change my mind if people can list more examples (bugs don’t apply). I guess another one can be adding customization to other HC, but I think that’s a no brainer that should have been added since the moment they decided to remove unblocking cards but keeping levels…
Personally, I think the developer’s ability to balance is the worst. Besides, there are only forums about meaningless balance.
I rather ignore the opinions of the forum and think that it is more appropriate for the developer to establish a balance after reaching elo 1400+ directly, but the developers are too conscious of the forum’s public opinion. In particular, it seems that the public opinion on Sweden and the Incas comes first. In fact, we’ve seen Sweden return in a stronger form two weeks after receiving a big nerf, and the Incas have only been buffed so far. Even though both civs are strong in 1vs1 supremacy.
However, it seems that they are thoroughly ignoring bugfixes and feature configurations. They haven’t made any modifications to the replay or spectator system required by the forum. Also, some fatal bugs (ex, bugs where units are trapped in buildings, attack movement bugs) still exist.
Well, I was actually referring to implementation of ideas on this forum, not bugfixes, but I see what you are saying. I feel like they have been fixing bugs, but rather slowly, and they have mainly ignored the ideas that come from this “discussion” threat (with the exception of things I mentioned above).
From what I have seen they probably balance the game mostly according to civ win rates, and they may also probably mainly consider the opinions of high lvl players such as diarouga, hazza, etc because they have far better knowledge of the game than we do here at the official forums which probably explains why japan hasn’t been touched despite the complains as the top players don’t think the civ is op.
So far in my opinion most of the changes have been good to be fair.
There is none very hard challenge for balance and that’s balancing the game on different skill levels.
Example is Japan:
Not having to control hunts makes playing the game easier because it requires less micro than any other civilisation. Therefor Japanese perform better on lower skill levels.
People than start to complain about Japan being OP.
Other problem is balancing Early vs. Late Game.
Some civilisations are strong early but leak in Imperial Age.
A lot of low level players tend to play longer matches. Less played gamemodes like 3v3 also tend to be more likely to end in Lategame and of course Treaty.
Half of the Balance complaint threads are about Treaty/Lategame.
Natives have nothing to compete with European Factories while having worse Farm/Estate eco and on top of that they need more Wood. Asians handle that much better. China and Japan basically have their own Factories.
The game can’t be perfectly balanced for all gamemodes.
Also a lot of balancing ideas from the forums are crazy.
If I go from what you are saying I don’t see anything here that indicates that the developers implement any of the suggestions from this forum threat.
Sure, balance are one of the topics talked about here, but not but any means the only ones (and even though some balance ideas posted here are bad, I believe you are overgeneralizing). I’ve seen plenty of suggestions to make underexplored game mechanics/assets more appealing, and zero of them been implemented nor tested.
If this is so, they should at the very least make it transparent, otherwise this is pure speculation. I believe that if this is the case, these same players would be extremely conservative, to the point that if it had been up to them, we would never had heard of Inca or Sweden as they are in this game. Their input is certainly important, but it should not be the only one; they are the first ones to talk against creativity, I’ve seen this many times on their comments on twitch.
i dont expect perfect balance, but if a faction is OP in the first 10 minutes and worthless post 30 then that faction need to be rebalanced, that isn’t a good or fun spot to be left in.
There is honestly no reason not to buff Native Imperial Age.
It won’t change 1v1 balance.
Lakota and Aztecs needs some earlier buffs too.
Natives do not need early buffs, they actually do very well in early Ages.
To buff their later Ages, Native civs should have a building taht gives them access to Mercenaries, like Euros and Asians do.
A Temple sort of building would be cool too, for Aztecs and Incas, and could serve as teh Mercenary building for these civs.
Also, Aztecs and Incas should get cards or upgrades in their Merc Buiding, taht ensures they get access to Lil’ Bombard, as compensation for not having Cannon themselves.
Hauds already have the best Cannon, and Lakota do not need it.
I meant earlier than Imperial so maybe Fortress/Industrial Age
They are completely find in Age 2.
Aztecs and Inca really need a Temple. They just have the Community Plaza but that is designed for North Americans and doesn’t fit the Central and Southern Civilisations that well.
They could have both, Asian Monastary does not give XP anyway, so as a simple Merc buildings with a few novelty upgrades for Mercs and Warchief, a Temple would be fine for Aztecs and Incas.
For Hauds and Lakot, I would honestly just give them the Saloon, as there is no reason why not.