What is the most thing that you wish to be fixed in the new patch?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
21

What is the most thing that you wish to be fixed in the new patch?

Balance, Balance and Balance.

I absolutely do not care about any UI updates, Profile Icons or Events (except the rightful allowance of NON DATA unit skin mods) because the joy in all of that is fleeting, we all get used to those changes very quickly and soon it feels like nothing. (Back in those days AoC graphics really felt like what we have now, and now that we look back, it looks like crap!)

Whereas on the other hand, Unit Stats and Civ bonus specs are the Epic Script on which the game is made, and has become as successful as it has, living in pur hearts for over 20 years, regardless of the visual/map/matchmaking/event/icon updates.

Therefore Balance is of beyond paramount importance.

Knights are OP. Over centralizing the entire metagame, which literally exists on top of its head.

HC and CA are UP. Beyond repair in case of HC.

EA, WE, Shotels, GC, Orjan Guns and so on are UP and an utterly useless waste of gold. They are only good for style points or for flexing on a lower level player.

Half the UTs are beyond useless, amd in this case you donā€™t even get style points for beating up noobs with these researched unlike the useless UUs.

ā€œBalanceā€ changes should aim to shift the metagame every 1-2 months PERPETUALLY like in many other online games (for example like in Pokemon Showdown)

We want more people to get shocked by streamer video titles and start watching videos of their old favorite (but usually bad) units wrecking some ā– ā– ā– ā– , thats the gateway drug to a twitch subscriptions, and how community can grow.

1 Like
22

literally your own opinion, if they are op, how are they so easily countered and why are knight civ winrates balanced?

except i literally just watched HC used quite effectively in multiple 1v1 tournament games, including just this past weekend. so obviously they are not beyond repair.

elephants arenā€™t under-powered, they are just far too expensive to mass up. re-balance elephants around lower stats and cost and they would be fine.

we want more people shocked? no. you do. especially seeing as a lot of people are already annoyed by clickbait titles. and frankly shaking up the meta every 1-2 months is a terrible idea for many reasons, i agree some shake up would be nice every now and then, but 1 to 2 months is far too often in the rts genre.

8 Likes
23

I think with a growing pro scene, there is less and less need for patches to ā€œshake upā€ the meta. Lets take Hoang (yeah, not technicially a pro, but his popularity certainly benefiteted from the growing scene): Celt siege didnt get buffed in decades, yet he showed a new way of playing the game. Viper is trying out Port despite them not getting buffed for a long time, and even plays them in tournaments (non-water, mind you).
So, the easiest way to get a diverse meta is having a diverse scene of pro players who try out new things. SC2 shows us the amazing creativity those guys can bring - the meta often changes without any patches.

1 Like
24

For the god sake, please DO NOT turn this thread into yet another balance demand whining marathon. We literally have such a thread in SLOW MODEā€¦ :frowning:

On top of that, I find it horrified that path finding fix is lower priority than unit balanceā€¦ some people are ok for half of their villagers gathering resources inefficiently or idling due to pathing issues? For me game de sync, disconnect, matchmaking etc should be prioritised first and foremost because they are the basis of a fun game.

5 Likes
25

Well, in your case itā€™s 100% Parthnan winrate.

Because, like always, all your balance statements are incorrect

2 Likes
26

This is not about civ winrate. This is about the unit overcentralizing the gameplay in Castle Age specifically, if you did not understandā€¦ how many times should I repeat this?
It is borderline OP because it is overcentralizing.

27

and yet the unit is easily and cost effectively countered.

tell me parthnan, if you nerf the knight, what happens to the winrates of those civs that rely on the knight?

so how do you propose to maintain balance after nerfing all those civs?

1 Like
28

Minor nerf to Knights to 90 (110) HP will have negligible impact on the already consistently >50% winrates (and insane pro pickrates) of Franks and Lithuanians.

1 Like
29

its not just franks and lithuanians who rely on the knight. also - now franks have the worst non bloodlines knights in the game. for a civ that is entirely reliant on the knight, that is a big deal.
furthermore if its going to have a negligible impact, why bother with the nerf at all? it still requires the same number of hits for a pike to kill.

so whats the point of your nerf? sure it makes crossbows a little bit better against them, (3 less hits), but according to you, even crossbows see too much use. so why bother?

the point of balance changes is to have balance changes that have an impact - your nerf does not have any noticeable impact

4 Likes
31

considering most every other cavalry civ has something else they can do, yes it matters. franks are literally a 1 trick pony all about the knight. also you can literally research BL on the way to castle age, before you can start making knights.
but no fair ignoring the pertinent parts of the question parthnan.

32

To carefully determine the point when Knights will stop being so singlehandedly and brutally overcentralizing in the metagame by babysteps, and also make many unused cavalry UU look slightly better for those open to them.

-10 HP will have the right amount of impact if you ask me. Not too big and not too small, 90HP Knights is a good solid ground for a month of testing a more balanced and less Knight centralized metagame.

33

the point of balance changes is to have an impact. iā€™ve already shown you 10 health wonā€™t have an impact -so whats the point?

so were supposed to just roll with this change for a month? for what purpose? 10 hp doesnā€™t change their interaction with pikes, it barely changes their interaction with crossbows.
it has no purpose other then for you to spend the next month clamoring for another nerf.

all because you believe knights are too strong. just because knights are a core gameplay unit and you donā€™t like it is not grounds for nerfing the unit. what you going to nerf after that? archers? because they see a lot of use too. whats your end game here parthnan? you want us to slow the game down to the point people just wall off and wait for unique units?

2 Likes
34

I think it is obvious that it changes interaction with everything, because a battlefield is never filled with only one type of unit,
(unless they are also going Knights, a unit so overcentralizing, a player going Knights can go 100% only Knights in Castle and destroy any army effortlessly.)

Knights are as overcentralizing as crossbows were before.

With this change, Knights will last -10% longer in a battlefield with ranged units
And non-pike infantry armies have a slight better deal

The point is not to buff Pike vs Knights, but to decrease the Knights overall strength a bit.
It is this insane 120 HP 2+2/2+2 bulk that is unrivalled by anything. Sure it costs gold, but gold is easy in Castle Age, thus the Knight line should also be a bit weaker in Castle Age, with stats not so close to Cavalier as they currently are.

This is the same reason why Monks dont get Block Printing and Theocracy in Castle Age. Else they too would become overcentralizing in their own way.

35

That sounds pretty much ideal. It would have an effect on their interaction with longswords, SL, TCs, etc. So if you can effect the matchups that are unbalanced without effecting the matchups that are balanced, thatā€™s ideal.

Iā€™m not saying youā€™re right btw, just that if youā€™re right that counts in @Parthnanā€™s favour

1 Like
36

oh, but i donā€™t see you asking to nerf pikes or skirms or crossbows, and all those see very common use too.

except you know, it dies to camels, pikes, and archers in bulk, which archers can be massed up earlier, and cheaper.

it barely changes their impact against any of those.

except those units arenā€™t supposed to beat knights, so those match-ups arenā€™t imbalanced.

2 Likes
37

Common yes, but they are always paired with each other to cover their weaknesses, making them not overcentralizing. Knights on the other hand is a unit so overcentralizing, a player going Knights can go 100% only Knights in Castle and destroy any army effortlessly, as I explained, and as observed.

Sure it costs gold, but gold is easy money in Castle Age, thus the Knight line should also be a bit weaker in Castle Age, with stats not so close to Cavalier as they currently are.

Knights are as overcentralizing today as crossbows were before.

So I will ask for minor Knight nerf just as I asked for crossbows back when the pathing was trash.

38

no they canā€™t. youā€™re literally lieing. archers + pikes would WRECK a pure knight army. as would camels.
but nice try.

you asked to nerf archers after pathing was fixed, but nice try.

1 Like
39

Camels are the exception here, and only few civs get Camels, let alone good camels.

With enough micro, Knights can destroy pike+crossbow via destroying their economy uncontested, with their GOD TIER 120 HP 4/4 bulk in castle age. I think this is fairly obvious. It is like a checkmate after a gambit of a piece in chess.

40

only if you leave your base undefended. which sounds like a player problem. not a balance problem.

1 Like
41

You cannot defend your villagers with pikes against a pure Knight army. Forget Crossbows, they melt vs Knights now.
Monks are an option, but take a lot of time and micro (52 seconds TT, and I have asked for this TT to be reduced, but no one listened)