Alright.
Seems like you are perfectly ok with their practice, since you defend it.
Have fun with low quality games in the future.
1 Like
Maybe just less hp on great bombard would counter balance the springald nerf. I donāt think the attack effectiveness of GB should be changed.
I still think Janissaries are the main issue because cavalry canāt be used on bombard. Even if you outnumber them.
1 Like
god know itļ¼its quite hard to understand dev +10 range defense to siege which make spring bow as a anti siege"s siege win hardly vs bombardļ¼
and ottoman has the best horseman in gameļ¼its attack range is so long ļ¼can pass 2 maa place to kill enemy siege
Team games are almost pointless right now. Everyone just goes Ottoman and makes a unit blob around the bombards. Springalds canāt do anything to them after this absolutely ridiculous nerf, and you canāt get ANY units to the bombards at all. Itās an absolute joke and people who are doing this in team games are absolutely wrecking everyone. Itās LAUGHABLE how bad this is right now.
1 Like
What you think if they did this?
Great Bombard
Hp reduced from 350 to 260
Janissaries
Now can toggle between melee and ranged attack
Gun
16 damage (unchanged)
1.75 attack speed (from 1.5)
+0 against cavalry (from 16)
Scimitar
12 damage
1.25 attack speed
+12 against cavalry
Janissary Gun (Imperial tech)
Gun attack deal +3 damage (unchanged) and +15% attack speed (Would bring back to the original 1.5)
Janissaries lose their arbitrary +50% damage taken from range.
yeah Iām just out of the game at this point, Iāve largely stopped playing since the last patch came out. not enough fun. even 1v1 isnāt that much better, every other game is otto/JD.
1 Like
Devs were just too stubborn and lazy to use the Aoe3 system.
Janissaries, musketeers and other similar units there automatically switch to their melee attack when they attack a melee target and have a HUGE attack bonus vs cavalry in that mode.
In ranged mode they do solid dmg to any kind of target, in melee mostly to cavalry.
You could also manually force them into melee mode, which was amazing to block off closing up enemy cavalry.
But well, what are we talking aboutā¦
Siege weapons donāt even have crews in aoe4.
This game is just a scam and itās super poorly executed for a 2021 gameā¦
1 Like
They need to reduce the AoE damage from GBs. Right now they can just delete a whole army in a few shots.
I mean, they must be powerful, but they canāt directly replace mangonels.
Right now, a great bombard does the springald work better, the mangonel work better, and the bombard work better.
In fact, a GB directly replaces them, and otto player just need to spam GB and Jans, because they got all the siege in 1, and jans just kill the only thing that can counter siege: cavalry.
Right now, specially in team matches, thereās is a huge disadvantage when you face ottomans, since they can just spam 2 units, and they can face everything, so, they are breaking the rock-paper-scissor, because their comp has no counters.
By reducing the AoE damage, you force ottos to build mangonels to face your archers/xbows, or simply MAA or other units to face your army. Right now, they just need a few shots of the GBs and your whole army is gone. Thatās not fair.
Honestly they should just give access to culverines to all civs, make their range the longest siege weapon range (after trebuchet) and change their dmg type from ranged to siege.
They SHOULD ignore the ranged armor or other siege weapons, because thatās their only taskā¦
Lower their base damage and increase their bonus vs siege.
But it seems like the Devs have no damn clue what they are doing.
In aoe3 every civ has cannons and culverines in age3 and the counter-system works well.
If someone masses cannon musketeer (like jan great bombard), youād just counter it with dragoon cannon+culverine and gg wp.
In aoe3 the super strong great bombard has a 0.4X dmg multiplier against siege weapons also, which should be implented in aoe4 also.
I donāt know why the Devs have to be so stubborn and ignorant to avoid the dynamic dmg system, which perfectly worked in aom and aoe3 at any cost and keep everything static and flat (effective dmg = dmg - resistance).
Unfortunately the counter system in aoe4 is not AT ALL thought through and keeps getting more messed up with makeshift changes and more civsā¦
Combination of Great Bombards and Jans u are talking aboutā¦Well donāt let Ottos have everything at once buddy.
All civs have great combo potential with their post imp army. I think u guyz are exagrating the situation.
Around %50 win rate is just ok . I guess.
2 Likes
They break the paper/rock/scissor, that EVERY OTHER CIV has.
Springalds doesnāt counter at all GBs, and knights or horseman got melted by jans, so your only option are culverin, but not everyone has culverin.
So, you end up making 10 springalds (30 pop and 5000 resources), to be able to snipe a 4 pop 1250 resource unit, and after the first shot, it will kill one of your springalds and you will not be able to kill any other GB since jans are reparing them while you get your whole army deleted.
I mean, if the solution is just donāt let them get to that point, bring back chineese grenadier (the one that a blob of 30 of them was just unstopable), or japanese ozutsu (the first release, where they killed all and just 6 of them were able to destroy keeps and everything else).
Itās not that easy dude, balance canāt be done just by ādonāt let the other guy do itā. Secondary TC has been several nerfed multiple times, while the solution was just donāt let the other guy put a secondary TC.
2 Likes
Letās have a lookā¦
Butchering 14 out of 15 other civs in the elo range where people know how to play.
Any more questions?
When great bombards had less AoE they were quite weak. I donāt think just going back an forth make sense since they already increased it in the past. I think the damage output is fine as long as you have access to proper unit counter, or that the bombard are a bit easier to destroy. They need to remain useful.
The problem comes from springald change, so it would do nothing to address that. Removing some GB hp thought would make sense based on new springald attack.
No lol. Giving culverin to ottoman would be broken. Also removes civ differentiation just to solve 1 civ issue that can be solved so many ways.
Yes, I noticed it too.
They dont want the AOE4 to improve, and I think it is their sole purpose to achieve.
1 Like
What.
You donāt counter musketeers+cannon with dragoons.
So much of this thread reads like a 14 year old ranting into his phone. Totally unhelpful.
1 Like
Can you please point the part out where Gorb defends their āpracticeā? Thank you.
I donāt know if it makes much sense to call a game thatās been in development for at least 4 years (assuming work on AoE 4 started after the initial announcement in 2017) and is now entering its third year post launch a āquick cash grabā.
I do have my issues with AoE 4 as I still prefer playing AoE 2 and 3 over it for various reasons but milking the cow is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think about AoE 4.
3 Likes
Then this is totally fine because great bombard is %50 more expensive than normal bombard
1 Like
According to what a normal bombard yes, is completely fine. The main difference is 3 bombards canāt delete your whole army in one shot.
This is why I said, in case of the bombard, doesnāt matter if it is 4 or 6 shots, because they donāt represent a real harm to your army. Also, in case of regular bombard, you can use knights or horseman to kill the siege, and if they do spears, you do archers, and if they do mangonels, you do spingralds, and you can face your enemyās army.
In case of ottomans, you canāt do knights, beacause they got melted by jans, you canāt do archers to kill jans, beacause the great bombard range and AoE damage, and making springalds doesnāt feel like a great counter, since bombards just kill them one shot, so you will lose all your springalds while jans are just repairing the great bombards.
I mean, I donāt need to elaborate too much, just check ottoās win rates and get into some matches and you will see they are completely broken at imperial.
1 Like
Well, itās been exactly 1 month since the January patch, itās not like the Ottomans have been broken since the start of the game. The real issue is:
- āThat with the recent modifications of the Siegeā, its single unit (Great Bombard) ended up being āthe most benefitedā.
Age of Empires is not the game that nerfs something a few weeks or days after a massive change, unless it is very serious, but that is normally only to solve Bugs, and as they showed in the win ratio in conquerors: The Ottomans are normal.
In general if we talk about balance: āThanksā to the recently springald and culverinas nerf, the bombards can do their job better and be a destructive anti-building force that is worth the investment.
However, this was done considering āNormal Bombardsā, however the Great Bombard is nothing but normal. In fact, since the update that made them āUsefulā in ranked (8.2.218), they were so broken that shortly after, they received a population Nerf from 3 ā 4, which still made them useful but limited their number.
In general I see several ways to try to balance the Great Bombard without making it useless in ranked or revert their last improvements:
-
1.- Increase its population by 1 more (4->5), so that its number is not abused and it has a significant weight in building them, as well as making it fairer in proportion to the enemy springalds that would be its only and main counter.
-
2.- Decrease its Speed.- Currently it is the same as the Bombarda, although in theory it is a much heavier cannon, with even more HP than normal by more than 40%.
-
3.- Decrease its HP.- The most risky, but it shouldnāt be a nerf that big either. A normal bombard has 240 HP, but the great Bombard has 350 HP, a practical āGilded Bombardā but without double population (As the OftD, it would cost 6 population). To be fair with its population: It could have 300 or 320 HP.
-
4.- Increase its minimum range from 3.5 to 4.5.- I only say this because of the logic that such a large cannon should not be possible to shoot from so close. Also this improve the chances of infantry and cavalry to attack them without being one-shotted in a very close range.
The price, attack or attack speed I think are fair, and the only reason that this unit is still useful in ranked.
2 Likes
I keep my point.
Aoe4ās support and effort speed of bug fixing, implenting of crucial features (which have to be in a decent quality rts game in year 2021 at release) and balancing takes ages and many important things never come and are never even mentioned on a roadmap.
I wanna post Aussie Drongos video again, now that all my previous posts (in multiple threads) have been deleted.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aussie+drongo
Seems like people who are criticizing M$crosoftās practices without soft-speaking and sugar-coating are being silenced.
āSupporting the game for two and a half years is, once again, the opposite of āno effortā.
[ā¦]
Thereās plenty of criticise, but āmilking the gameā for āquick cashā completely ignores the reality of the gameās lifecycle to date.ā
The game received a fraction of the support it should have gotten, in order to reach a final-release state, a fully finished product.
Many many many many many things now 2 years after release are still missing, basic crucial QOL features are missing, the observer mode is severely bugged, the game itself has tons of bugs which were reported in the betas and keep getting re-reported.
After charging 60ā¬ at release and then charge again for a DLC while making empty promises and giving absolutely no feedback to surveys, being radiosilent towards the fans, that is wellā¦ more than questionable.
I keep my point and keep calling it milking of the cow.
And I absolutely donāt care wether there is a shortage of people working on the project or not.
I donāt care that Relic couldnāt and still canāt handle the load of things to accomplish and fix in aoe4 after having layoffs and whatnot.
Why?
Because it is the publishers job to assign a suitable budget to the project.
Microsoft was in charge to supervise things and MAKE SURE things go well.
If the team which works on the game is, for whatever reasons and may it be downsizing, unable to finish the work, then timely add a new team to support them or replace the previous one.
But instead they just let the game die now.
You canāt build a pipeline and give the construction team only half the budget needed, then when the public is asking wether and when it will be finished and why it is not finished yet say:
āUnfortunately they were layoffs in the team we assigned with the tasks.
We do our best to handle things and very soon AMAZING THINGS will come.
And MUCH MUCH MORE!
Furthermore we are happy to celebrate the 10 year construction anniversary.
Come and celebrate with us!ā.
It is just a straight lie.
Investors have already paid and you keep them hanging.
You know what would happen?
Lawsuits.
For the gaming industries it has now become the norm to run such practices.
In fact they donāt WANT to invest into the game, but keep charging for purchases of the maingame and getting more money through DLCs. Things are going well for M$crosoft.
After aoe4 dies or becomes so small that it is irrelevant, a new game can be made and sold again in thousands and millions of copies and later m!ilk the cow more. More quick cash and no competition through the previous old milk-cow.