All the new dlc they added , were op from the start specially in treaty . Swedon , inca , Hausa , euthopia , usa .
Swedon was op for so long , till last few nerf , they still are tier 1 civ
Inca was op for long till the last nerf in last patch .
Since start euthopia and usa were top two broken civ in treaty , but they buffed euthopia and Hausa even more by new cards . And now they are even going to buff usa with new cards .
Treaty is currently going through pay to win phase . If u want rank , play euthopia or usa . Else u r gonna have not slight but huge disadvantage .
These civs are banned in normal lobby by community , and are lamed in ranked .
asian civ were broken tho , remeber how broken were japanese ? remeber world cup were every match was japan minnior ? japan was op in treaty in legacy as well .
i m talking about the dlc that u have to pay for .
Why Devâs whatâs to make this game pay to win?
âWhy Dev is what is to make this game pay to win?â
Did anyone understand that?
a) US, not USA
b) Sweden, Inca, and US were free, not sure what are you talking about here.
New civs are more often than not slightly unbalanced (obviously) because internal testing is not the same as public testing. On top with some advantage in power, designed to make them more fun and appealing for early adopters.
It was free. Not sure how being a reward in a (free) event* contradicts that fact.
*that was also borderline braindead simple, so no real bumps on the road.
Same as Sweden and Inca civ- they came with the game itself, hardly a DLC or expansion when itâs a part of the core package.
Sweden and Inca were and are still free. They came packaged with the game. The USA is a paid DLC that was offered for free for a very limited time if you did a grindy monotonous month long challenge. Not an equivalent of Sweden or Inca in the least.
Was it technically free for a short time? Yes. But so are many many things in pay-to-win mobile games. Again, the fact that it was offered for free at all is awesome, but still disingenuous to refer to it as free in the same context as the Incans or Swedes.
So now youâre using mobile f2p games as a point of comparison? What are you actually trying to say here, because Iâm not sure.
All new civs in games like that have problems after release. 2DE, 3DE- doesnât matter.
Donât know what are you talking about and how does that matter here. Care to elaborate?
Sweden and Inca had balance issues, US had balance issues, African ones had balance issues.
US was free because it was free. Your view that the event was boring doesnât change that fact. Nor Iâm saying it had the same status as Sweden when it comes to how easy it was to access that content.
Free or paid civ, doesnât matter- it will always require a fairly long process of balancing based on community feedback and dev analysis.
All I can say is repeat- free or paid doesnât matter in the context of this subject.
OPs post is a mess, heâs talking about a few different things and he gets them wrong/ doesnât understand.
Nothing about new civs from Inca to Hausa comes close in its nature to P2W practices.
Balancing games is hard.
Balancing games like these classic RTS games with numerous civs is harder.
Doing that in the context of PVP multiplayer is very hard and time-consuming, especially for games with a lower profile (not talking about AoE IV, but in general about hard-hitting AAA titles that get the most funding and attention from a publisher, here- Microsoft). They might have 3 or 30 people working on this support, I donât know.
Devs have to solve the same problems and oblige to the same rules, whether itâs a free event civ in 3DE, or full-blown expansion with campaigns etc. like in 2DE.
Fixing things takes time. Devs work hard on fixing them, but balancing very diverse and numerous selection of civs take much longer- just gathering data and feedback from competitive multiplayer matches and processing it is a lot of work. Most problems with civs are not âbugsâ that can be hotfixed, but just that- a balance.
People are clueless about a lot of things and jump to conclusions âX is OP, nerf Yâ, at the same time suggesting nefarious intent from developers. Because clearly designing OP civ aimed to destroy multiplayer scene and popularity of the game is their goal
Without a developer in this thread- we can talk endlessly about how long it should take to balance a civ, but itâs all speculation, and very easy in theory from a position of armchair game designer
This is not pay to win
Even if Mexico become one of most picked, you still have all other to use.
They released standalone civs like this, probably cozâ others fits more with a theme to come in pairs.
I wish I could get something from Grainne Mhaol or any stuff about the Golden Age of PiracyâŠ
Swedes and Incas came with the DE game itself so they are not paid. And Inca were only op for the first few patches, nerfed pretty hard, returned op with the second last patch, and nerfed back to normal with the last batch.
US has been quite bad since release. Only buffed in the rework patch.
Africans were indeed op at release but the nerf was quick and huge.
Iâd expect Mexico to be pretty op (at least pretty lame) on release, if they have no significant penalty in the early game.
Now as for treaty, I fear the game has rarely been seriously balanced for treaties. They gave some buffs to those with very bad late games but thatâs all.
Silly topic imo with no real foundation, inca were op at release but quickly nerfed back to b tier, usa released as a weak civ and for a long time were 1 of the weaker civs in the game recent patches have helped them a bit but still below the level of old civs like brit/spain/ports etc at least in supremacy.
Sweden is the only civ that was op for awhile because of torps being a nightmare to balance, still not pay to win because itâs included in DE so everyone with DE has access to sweden. Theyâve nerfed swedes too far now imo and nobody uses them.
Ethiopia and hausa got huge nerfs, Hausa was my most played civ but since 3v shipment was removed Iâve stopped using them, a step too far imo.
It was your choice to pay for it or dedicate some time to do event challenges in order to receive it for free.
US launch event was quite long. Just like not liking it doesnât change the fact devs made US obtainable for free, the same way event being time-limited doesnât change that.
Unlock for Free! For a limited time, you can unlock the new United States civilization for FREE by completing 50 in-game challengesâeach representing a state in the union and ordered by the date they joined the United States!
It was fairly long and could be tuned when it comes to the number of challenges that can be completed in one game and a couple of descriptions (and maybe one legit bug that was hotfixed), but lore-wise it was actually very interesting and in spirit with the subject- formation of United States.
Gameplay-wise it was super simple, but these challenges and event are promo tools for devs, not ways to introduce new content, game modes, mechanics.
They were designed to be simple/ borderline boring. AoE games are not RPGs and options are limited for what can be done by a player, outside of building/gathering/killing.
If they were hard/tricky there would be 2x more complaints. At least they could be done quickly (min maxing like resigning counts as a completed game, etc.).
Not really though, many original civs still remain very strong either S or A tier such as brit/spain/ports/dutch etc.
Swedens trash now, Inca are probably a high B tier, US B tier, hausa feel so slow since 3v was removed. Ethiopia are still fairly good but very predictable FF civ, only in treaty are they particularly strong I believe.
