For me is good, because made a game more entertaiment and many players wait for the new patch each month, also is important to balance civs that are very weak, as teutons or khmer and now are good civs
Atthis point is clear that they don’t test that much
They have a discord server for that, with pro players and experts giving advice.
Agains, guys. Priorities. And with perfect balance I mean all civs being picked. Some more, some less, depending the map.
But with Madden football, not every team can be the Philadelphia Eagles (rated highest, apparently, in Madden 20), or have a DeAndre Hopkins (99 overall rating in the game).
Isn’t it just life that some civs will be better than others? Pretty sure I’ve never played a game with perfectly balanced teams, players, weapons, etc.
I do get the argument, though, that some people just like things changed up from time to time. That’s cool. Isn’t my thing, but I can see how some people would find true enjoyment from that. Causes you to shift strategies over time, and such.
- Actually, now that I think of it more, I guess I can relate to from an older Battlefield game front. The exact same multiplayer maps have existed in that game for a decade. Everyone’s mastered them. I don’t like that everyone knows exactly where everything is and it’s a gripe of mine. They play like clockwork. If things were randomized or changed up a bit from time to time, it would bring new life into it.
Change for change’s sake is fine, but not sure that perfect balance will ever be achieved, if that’s what a lot of people are desiring?
I have a bet that the current pace will continue until the game complete its first year cicle. Then they will announce if the next steps will be maintaining the rythm, slowing it down or even interrupt the continuous patching. Time will tell, but my guess is that the first annyversary will have some words regarding that.
Game balancing does not pursuit a sate of perfection, but rather a dynamic change in how the game is played, while trying to still maintain it fun, led by some philosophy. With DE what seems to be their philosophy is put as much civs as possible in a ‘playable state’, as well as introducing new features to twist the metagame and bring a decent amount of player input to the game.
I think that it is rather interesting and do a fine job of putting the game in evidence, as well as giving players a reason to come back/keep playing. I doubt that DE would have as much popularity if they kept their philosophy of “leaving it to players figure out how to deal with the game and only making exceptional balance changes with very low impact” used in HD.
Edit: Justo to clarify, my points only regard game balancing, not bug fixing, performance improvements, etc.
Many changes are awesome. New Teutons are cool. Vietnamese being actually playable is cool. And the list could go on.
Except teams are made up of persons, to whom you can’t ask to play worse, while civs are like the rules/terrain/whatever: you can tweak them.
I like the monthly refreshing of the balance by balance changes. It makes the game much more alive. The meta will be constantly refreshed. I just dont like it to see the same civs over and over again. So i hope they will continu with balance changes for a while.
Hopefully not anytime soon, since there’s still a lot of balancing to be done and it is careful work. I’d say 2 or 3 years from now will be a likely case when you MIGHT expect that balance changes wont be so frequent as they are now. I don’t like to think nor expect that in a year we’d gotten that far yet. Balance is both important and it takes time.
There is a lot of tail chasing there’s no doubt about that and this is happening on any big game all the time. But I’d say the balance has nonetheless gotten better in general than what it was in the past, so we are going forward with it in general.
Of course balance cannot be the only thing they do. And it also hasn’t been. But it should not be forgotten nor left as it is right now.
If you are computer Hacker, you can make your own mods of the game and play them.
But why do you want to destroy the fun of all other players ???
If all civs are the same, the game do NOT need to have 35 civs.
The CHESS have only 2 civs.
If you want a balanced game, both players must take only one civ.
Was about to say that there’s only 1 but I guess white has a civ bonus to start first.
What?? I dont wanna destroy the fun of all other players by just giving my opinion, my feelings on this subject. Seems like you dont really like the balance changes. That is fine. I do like the balance changes. That is also fine. It is just an opinion.
Thats why we should only listen to what pro players like tatoh or daut say, because they play this game sooo much and they are the most reliavable people to make good balance opinions and suggestions and not just any noob that says ‘ooh ambais are so bad give them +3 atack’ or ‘ooh saracens are camel civ and they have avegare castle age camels, thats sooo unfare’ .
Well, i really think devs should only listen pro players and not us…
In my opinion only the last update wasn’t good, but all previous ones were well received.
I also like constant balance updates. It keeps the game more entertaining when choosing civs and taking into account their new pros and cons.
Brood War received the last balance patch like 15 years ago.
On the other hand Starcraft 2 has a balance patch every 3 months or so.
Thanks everyone for your replies! Believe it or not, it makes me feel a lot better about and more okay with the balance changes Truly appreciated. I mean, I’m not going to be someone who all the sudden demands and rejoices such changes, but I see the benefit better and I consider it ‘cool’ now
If you don’t want to be heard, remaining silent is a good option
I want to be heard so that devs don’t take us really seriously because most of the suggestions are really bad in my opinion.
And I mean only BALANCE suggestions.
Some suggestions are good, some bad. And some are, maybe good, but we don’t understand them (Saracen camels? I can explain you why).my point is suggestions should be made, and then people in charge would decide.
Btw, your portuguese buff idea was more good than Bad for me, but that for another toppic
In spite of the numerous posts on the forums about balance changes, the game is fairly balanced as it is especially after the last patch. Some tweaks could be made for some civs like the Portuguese, Turks, Koreans, Indians (Elephant Archers) and Burmese but then we’ll be done imho. Balance should stabilize in the coming months and the devs need to focus more on bug fixes, pathfinding, performance and stability. Out of these 4 last issues, I’d say that path finding for melee units is the most urgent.