When Franks, Britons, Mayans, and Chinese are going to be nerfed?

the advantage these civs give you is miniscule on most levels. civ picking translates to maybe +50 elo or something, afterall franks have a winrate of 55%, that’s so little above average

1 Like

I would reduce the chivalary effect for franks to 33%

For mayans i would reduce the food hold to 10%

For brits the tb and maybe yeomen plus one but no longer +1 in castle age but They get +1 in imp

Chinese i would say the reduction rate for costs to like 5%/10%/15 and ckn +10 gold (maybe -heavy camels but They also had influence from camel civs )

Also what if Berry bonus for franks get buffed but they no longer get the farm upgrades for free (or only the first one)

the point is that we make proposal and discuss about it since the dawnof times, but nothing really changes for these civs. it’s almost like devs like this meta and wants them to overperform, because otherwise they would have already found a way to even slightly nerf them and see what happens, baby steps approaches, but ibstead nothing.

I think my proposal wouldt be too radical i mean yea its alot but like said in baby steps it could be just chivaraly profuction rate Chinese duscount reduction and britons +1 in imp not castle

The farm bonus is a lot stronger than the berry bonus. And is something they have had since AoK.

We don’t want to change how civs fundamentally work, just tweak the small stuff.

5 Likes

The devs have previously stated that they aim to get all civs’ win rate within 45%-55%. According to aoedash, Franks have a 57% win rate on the latest patch, but 54% on patch 56005 (this is the 4th last patch, the 2nd and 3rd last patches seem to have been short lived since they don’t have many matches in them).
I think part of the current overperformance of these civs is due to the KOTD4 Arabia map script which was designed for tournaments with civ picking and banning in mind. I would wait to see how the new arabia script affects the win rates before asking for nerfs.
Franks, Britons, Mayans, Chinese are designed to be good on arabia and much of the balance of arabia revolves around these civs. I would prefer to add more weaknesses to these civs, rather than nerfing their strengths that make them unique.

2 Likes

I think deva would rather buff everyone else.

But thus will and already has somewhat spilled everything out of control.

Aoe 2 bonuses allow much more extremeness, with harder countering and unit or eco differneres beetwen players.

Before everyone felt more or less the same, but now clear strong advantages are dominating the fame.

In aoc Spanish fu paladin are s tier. Now we got alit stronger stuff than that.

1 Like

I think devs are also trying to make the civs more unique and fun to play. Regional units are an example of things that add uniqueness.

Sicilians towers may suck in competitive games, but ofc the strat is quite original.

tbf, now that hauberk has been nerfed, donjon and serjeants could use a little buff

Donjons are going to be buffed to be brought in line with the buffed watch towers.

1 Like

Indeed. My point is that they are not a competitive strategy (maybe they will be in few days).

Still I appreciate them since they make the civ unique and fun to play at least at low level. I personally like this direction the devs seem to point to. Not just balance but also unique and funny strategies.

Ofc, also balancing is important, so people are right to me in asking changing for some over/under performing civs.

In Feudal Age the new patch will be a small win for Donjons because they get +25% HP while Watch Towers will get only +21.4% HP.

1 Like

Yeah i know that, but i’m not sure if that Is enough. They still have same HP as a tower afterwards with way bigger size which is big disadvantage, and the sinergy with serjeants is not helped by the fact that serjeants could use help as well being that expensive

Of they could be made Better in feudal-castle without touching the elite, but that would interact with First crusade

wrong

we played for 20 years with this dumb position-picking setting

win rate indicates the true strength of a civ only when pick rates are even. If only 7-8 civs are used most of the time, the win rate won’t reflect the strength of the civ against the remaining 30+ civs. Franks, Mayans and these other civs have the top draft priority in almost all S tier tournaments. Franks have 12% pick rateon 1200+ 1v1 and 9% pick rate on TG 9 (almost 3x than other cavalry civs). If the bonuses were only “miniscule” the difference won’t be that huge.
You can check for yourself at age-of-statistics
And all the tournament stats compiled by this amazing person:
https://liquipedia.net/ageofempires/Nerfox

You can see the totul and brutul domination in draft rate by Franks, Mayans, Chinese across multiple 1v1 tournaments.

You can still play with those settings in unranked lobby. When you play ranked, you don’t have control over whether opponents will pick civs or not. If the devs enforce that, the game will lose a large player base who want to raise their elo or simply just want to win or don’t like to lose because of civ disadvantage.
And lets not pretend that the all-random setting is ideal.

The situation is a bit more ecomplex when choosing for team games. The general reason you would want a Britons on 4v4 Black Forest starts with the fact that the Mayans, and most especially the Chinese are sharp underperformers on that map. The Vikings can be strong in early aggression, but wane as the game goes on. The Britons team bonus naturally supports your other flank, while their Longbowmen are good defensively, and for offense. The Vietnamese Rattans tend to suffer sharply when dealing with SOs, so they get overshadowed. The Ethiopians can be quite good, but people like their siege function better for a reason. The Indians are an interesting consideration, as the Elephant Archer is now becoming an archery range unit. The Berbers are another interesting choice, as Camel Archers murder cavalry, but they need to maintain a critical mass as a castle unit on a map where fast reproduction is the rule. A Bohemian flank means Halb/Houfnice + frightful trade. I will note that the Italians can be terrors on the flank, because their strength against cavalry can compensate brilliantly for their vulnerability to siege, but the siege player will know where they are, and italians lack siege engineers.
So yes, the Britons are a natural staple on 4v4 Black Forest, but some of that has to do with the nature of siege, some of that with Paladins being produced like rabbits, and other factors. Competitors who are good on Arabia are not worth talking about on team Black Forest. That the Britons are also good on Arabia speaks more to their versatility than them being broken.

2 Likes

The civ used to suck before they had the berry bonus. The berry bonus can be buffed until the civ is good enough. Also nerfing the Mayan resource bonus will just make the civ more one dimensional

1 Like

I have had this exact same conversation with @MatCauthon3, go check the wiki on Franks to see why they got good after that update: it also gave them the 20% hp bonus to their scouts, halberdier, and some buffs to throwing axes

They have halbs since age of conquerors, extra hp is useless if your scouts arrive too late (and this goes for Magyars as well) and throwing axemen buff is whatever. Without the berry bonus Franks would be bad.

Just remove the farming bonus and buff their berry collection until they are strong enough

1 Like