Let’s list our top 5 things that we think are the most in need of a nerf. I start
Teutons farm discount restored to it’s original AOC vlaue of 33% cheaper instead of the de buffed 40%
Teutons are on aoe stats the no 1. Civ in 1v1 games when restricting to 1200+ elo on aoe stats (all maps) . Teutons have been sleeper op for a long while.
Malinas gold bonus reduced by 5%. The boys buff we went to far and catapulted them right into the top 3 winning civs in many settings and ratings.
Similiar for inca, decrease the food discount by 5% in every age.
They got jumped right into the top 5 of winning civs.
Turks janissary range in castle age reduced to 7. This civ needs a nerfs Similiar to organ guns did so they can’t snipe mangonel from far away with high dmg bullets.
No actually that’s it. I don’t have a fitht point I personally see as important as the other ones.
Outside a couple obvious examples, I don’t really have a strong opinion on this until the effects of the latest update become more clear. Mayans, for example, clearly needed a nerf - and got one with the EW price hike, but also some indirect nerfs due to the buffs received by other civs. Malian buff went a bit too far, but I’m not sure about Incas. But I generally prefer the approach of buffing weaker civs over muting everything interesting about strong civs. I agree more than not with the OP’s Malians and Janissary changes though, the rest TBD.
I really don’t see any problem with this. I know that people like to bring up how “X civ has been strong for Y years” as if there should be some sort of eternal rotation where every civ gets a turn at being the top dog and the balance is forever in flux, but I really don’t think Age2 is the type of game that needs such artificial variety. Also, the vast majority of player are (obviously) nowhere near the top 50, and at their elos Chinese are far less remarkable, so I don’t see them having any personal stake in this. I guess you could come at this from the angle of wanting to see more civ variety in tournaments, but there’s already been a lot of improvement here in terms of new maps and settings. So much better than the Hun wars of the 2000s. Anyway, there will always be a top civ in certain settings, and if I had to pick one for high level Arabia, I don’t think I could choose a more sensible one than Chinese. If needed, nerf them indirectly by strengthening weaker civs.
One thing I hate about people complaining about top 5 is that there will always be a top 5 no matter what the balance is. Nerfing top 5 civs and you will have a new top 5 until every civ in the game has no bonus. Yes, a few bonus should be nerfed but not to the point where the civs just slowly fade out of existence like Hindustani and Gujara .
You mean too dominant? And after the TB nerf I think Britons aren’t that dominant on TGs anymore, but Franks need a nerf for TGs for sure (Change Chivalry effect and make the Cavalry HP bonus to start from castle age).
who would you nerf if not the top 5?
buffing the worst 5 over and over is even worse solution. there is alsways a worse civ and stuff just spirales out of controle with ever stronger bonuses and even more snowbally games
I don’t honestly see how Chinese are a problem.
I see very low/mid win rates until crazy high elo (2000+).
The vast majority of the player base can’t really use them, quite the opposite of Franks.
Chinese win rates on Arabia are bottom SIX until 1500 ELO on aoepulse. It becomes the absolute WORST civ on “any map”.
Does it seem a nerf worthy civ?
I disagree, i think the buff was needed as many pros pointed out Vikings were falling out, and the buff made they either more interesting and history accurate (pillagers and raiders) and gave them something more than just 1 strat (infantry + siege RAM) with new Archer buff while not adding thumb ring
If anything i think chieftains and/or berserker elite could become a tad more expensive now after the buffs
I proposed to tone down the food cost quite a while ago.
Imho with “elite” units like Serjeants makes a lot more sense to have a high gold cost and low food cost.
Right now it’s 60f 35g, I’d rather have 40f 45g or even 30f 55g honestly, it would also make it a bit different from the militia line (at least until supplies).
Who uses Serjeant extensively in post imperial anyways? They might be viable earlier instead with a lower food cost.
Well on the other hand Chinese civ picker is basically the same as Frank civ picker at high elo (2k1+)… and I am one of the ppl in that elo range so I really want to get it nerfed 11
With all due respect, you are like the 1%, I’m not really happy to balance things for such a small minority of the player base, expecially since a nerf would likely put Chinese on the bottom of any map at any elo below that (it’s already bottom 10).
Just to make things more clear, I never use Chinese, so I’m speaking from an objective point of view here. If they were removed from game tomorrow, I wouldn’t even notice it.
It’s the idea of balancing things based on crazy high elo that bothers me.
I honestly would prefer to make Chinese more accessible - I actually suggested ways that makes Chinese more balanced in high elo without affecting other elos much, like the removal of Heavy camel/champions (do low elo ppl even notice them?)
But I can understand your viewpoint that balancing only around high elo is not great. Just really sad to play against Chinese pickers everytime.
