I am not here to discuss at all if these civs need buffs or not or being good or not, I am here talking about useless UTs
So in one post you say it's not about civs needing buffs or not, it's just about whether the UTs are good or bad. Then in the next post you talk about whether a civ is "avg" or "strong" as a criterion for whether their "unworthy" UT should be changed. Do you really not see the contradiction?Where is the contradictory? The civs that I listed are avg or even less avg civs, changing their UTs would not make them broken LOL, do you want me to change Huns, Cumans and Chinese UTs for something better for example? Those civs are already strong and what is useless in their tech tree should remian useless since they are top tier already.
- Slavs dont even exist for 10 years by now, neither do castle age Unique Techs in general....About what you said for Faultier the guy's reply came in a wrong way. He started to talk from balance and civs advantages and disadvantage or civs stats in general which I don't care and this is not my topic idea here. I think no sane man would disagree how these UTs are completely useless in most cases and need a change. Why would you-for example-research Tigui or Mahouts or whatever in game? They are so bad and useless same for Incas castle age UT that remove the minimum range, it is just useless. The devs removed Madrasah UT and Orthodox Slavs after 20 years and there were people like Faultier who thought Madrassah was fine, but here we are with no dumb Madrasah UT or Orthodox. What is a mitsake, everyone should admit it, it is a mistake that's it; and those UTs are a mistake. They are useless in most cases and no need to get them at all. As I said before again and again, those UTs ideas as ideas are fine but not as a UT but normal bonuses, you can super ez make Celts, Saracens and Incas UTs a normal bonuses and nothing would change, becasue they are meh UTs, same for the Italians one and nomad for Mongols too.
But I said it in the first paragraph that strong civs don't need any buffs, if we change their bad UTs this means we buff them and they are strong, I never said if the civ is strong or not I want to change the useless UT. I answered this many times already in almost every comment LOL. The civs in my list are all avg and even less than avg.So in one post you say it's not about civs needing buffs or not, it's just about whether the UTs are good or bad. Then in the next post you talk about whether a civ is "avg" or "strong" as a criterion for whether their "unworthy" UT should be changed. Do you really not see the contradiction?
And you are wrong becasue those civs all are avg and less than avg and their UTs almost useless so changing them would help them a little.You claimed that you only wanted to change UT of civilisations that are bad. I listed why many of those Civilisations are NOT bad and therefore dont need a very strong Castle Age Unique Tech
what a weird example. If you see the enemy tc being build then you can simply go else where, if you are before him then you are fine, this scenario is laughable to use Tigui, why are you keep making your arguments look like a joke?Even in a 1v1 Arabia, but mostly on Maps like Nomad or Megarandom, especially in Teamgames it might happen in a Situation that two Opponents drop a Town Center at the same gold for example. If you are Malians, you can research Tigui and then you win the TC war
11Or on Gold Rush you see your Opponent is coming forward and wants to drop a Castle on you and you realize it in time and get that Lithuanians Tech for extra range and deny the Castle drop
It is 16xx in 1v1, 2,3K TGs, not that much but that doesn't mean that I don't know how many thing in the game are wrong LOL. But what about your ELO? Becasue after I have read your laughable examples how to use these UTs I think you are below 700 ELO no?Can I ask you what your Elo is and for how long you have been playing this game? Judging by your statements you seem like some kid who plays the game for like a Year, Arabia only, and after watching all of Spirit of the Laws Civ reviews thinks he's an expert.....
The fact you include mongols alone is contradictory. Or are you seriously saying you know better then pro opinions?Where is the contradictory?
This is peak irony. Youre living proof elo doesnr mean jack. Just memorizing build orders can carry you to 1600. I've met low elo legends who understand the game better then you.Becasue after I have read your laughable examples how to use these UTs I think you are below 700 ELO no
alright, lets do this...And you are wrong becasue those civs all are avg and less than avg and their UTs almost useless so changing them would help them a little.
what a weird example. If you see the enemy tc being build then you can simply go else where, if you are before him then you are fine, this scenario is laughable to use Tigui, why are you keep making your arguments look like a joke?
11
It is 16xx in 1v1, 2,3K TGs, not that much but that doesn't mean that I don't know how many thing in the game are wrong LOL. But what about your ELO? Becasue after I have read your laughable examples how to use these UTs I think you are below 700 ELO no?
Mongols are mediocre civ, changing their UT won't change anything that much even if you give them nomad as free civ bonus, on the other hand what @Lokalo suggested that Drill needs nerf is totally right, so replace the useless nomad with something better and nerf drill at the same time.The fact you include mongols alone is contradictory. Or are you seriously saying you know better then pro opinions?
My name is equalizer and I know better then stats, pros, casters, and literally everyone who disagrees with meMongols are mediocre civ
It seems all the civs are S tier to you 11. How about no? And how about those UTs are completely useless? On the other hand you went wrong again, those civs are fine civs avg or less or fine or more whatever, which means changing their useless UTs won't make them broken like other S tier civs at all. You started with Celts, I really wonder what Celts winrate would be like without Hoang, a civ that have literally the worst tech tree in the game, they are not even B tire and their UT in castle is useless., other civs are fine too and balanced but this why I already suggested to change their useless UTs because they won't be OP and most of them actually don't have anything special or that great eco, all of them are generic or depend mostly on their UU (like mongols) On the other hand you started to say this S tier on arena, this S tier on nomad this S tier on water..LOL. The game balance always take Arabia as a major reference because it is simply the most played map not other ones. Regardless what you say about those civs (Which they are clearly D to B tier at most), those UTs are completely dumb and useless and need a change having them or not is the same case.alright, lets do this...
First of all: Beeing "Average" by definition means that the Civ is in the middle of the Balance and doesnt need any Buffs. Except of course you want to use Gujaras as a measure of how strong a Civ should be....
1. Celts: For sure S-Tier, probably top 2 on BF. On Arabia opinions a different, but most Pros list them in the upper half, except for Hera.
2. Incas: Its weaker then Mayans or Aztecs, but its still a Meso Civ.
3. Malians: S-Tier on Nomad. Viper used to talk a lot about how great and flexible Malians are. It sucks that they lost their free gold mining upgrade, but at least before that it bwas considered clearly in the upper half of the Civ pool even for Arabia.
4. Mongols: Besides them beeing S-Tier and maybe the best Black Forest Civ, they are also great on any map where there is some extra Hunt. Heck, they are even great for Water Maps just because of their fast uptime. Their Team Bonus is quite helpful aswell. You see Mongols get picked in Tournaments quite a lot, they even get banned sometimes. And Mongols are also not a bad Civ on Arabia.
5. Persians: S-Tier on Hybrid Maps, S-Tier on Nomad. For Arabia I think it was Hera who once called them "The strongest of the bad civs", which is average I guess
6. Saracens: I explained earlier how the Saracen Market in combination with their Siege Crossbows can be pretty deadly. Most Pros agree that the Saracens Market in fact makes the Civ pretty strong.
7. Italians: S-Tier on Water Maps, A-Tier on Hybrid Maps, very good Flank Civ for Teamgames. On Arabia just slightly below average, I think underrated....
Its a rare Situation. Thats why is used the word situational. It can still occur, and in that case in an Arabia game neither you want to delete an unfinished TC nor leave the gold to your Opponent. In a Nomad TG this can happen much easier, and in Nomad you quite often have Situations where you are surrounded and cant really run anywhere. I dont know how much Tigui would help in a TC war, its a hypothetical example, might not be the best. But its still a great Tech when you are getting raided.
Im a 15xx in 1v1 mostly, peaked at 1650 twice.
Not that it really matters, just some things you said like "when you are getting raided you loose the game anyways" and stuff like that made me think you might be some 11xx or sth....
But even most of the pros class Mongols as B tier and some of them even C tier, Mongols only Mangudai.My name is equalizer and I know better then stats, pros, casters, and literally everyone who disagrees with me
Those same pros list lithuanians as b tier yet somehow you think they need nerfs.But even most of the pros class Mongols as B tier and some of them even C tier
He is very inactive thoughThis is peak irony. Youre living proof elo doesnr mean jack. Just memorizing build orders can carry you to 1600. I've met low elo legends who understand the game better then you.
But here's the catch. At some point actual game knowledge is needed to continue to progress.
And again you're living proof. You've been stuck at 1600 for over a year. Why hasn't your elo gotten better?
I like this game too, and I like what you said and agree with that and like the diversity in the game. I was mad when devs reomved Celts infantry speed bonus from dark, and even the old Koreans trush, same for Incas (but I don't blame devs about Incas that strat was terrible and hard to stop LOL), anyway. The thing is, those UTs are really laughable and usless in most cases, they just give nothing. Acoording to your logic, we should just kept Madrasah for Saracens and Orthodox for Slavs because in your opinion those civs are fine, but actually this is not how the things work. Anyway changing those useless UTs for those mediocre civs will make them better a little bit and will give them better chances, and since they are already AVG civs and some are even below they will be fine I hope, it is just better than the current situation.The last thing I will say:
This is goddamn AoE 2, we have had very weird techs for 24 years now, just look at some stuff you can do in the University. It is a GOOD thing that there are techs in the game that are not worth it in every game or even are just worth ot in 1 or 2 out of 100 games. It makes CONTENT when T90 finds some weird game where a Player actually wins because of Murder Holes and makes a YT Video, or when Viper beats a 2k3 with DrushFC into Full Donkey play. Its a reason why I love this game and why so many people love this game.
Of course they need nerf, Lithuanians are just that cic who literally have no weaknesses. Who said they are B tier? Most of the pros class Lithuans as A at least or even S. The civ literally have everything.Those same pros list lithuanians as b tier yet somehow you think they need nerfs.
So which is it equalizer?
I am stuck at 1600 (1693 peak) becasue I barely play 1v1, mostly TGs.This is peak irony. Youre living proof elo doesnr mean jack. Just memorizing build orders can carry you to 1600. I've met low elo legends who understand the game better then you.
But here's the catch. At some point actual game knowledge is needed to continue to progress.
And again you're living proof. You've been stuck at 1600 for over a year. Why hasn't your elo gotten better?
Of course they need nerf, Lithuanians are just that cic who literally have no weaknesses. Who said they are B tier? Most of the pros class Lithuans as A at least or even S. The civ literally have everything
Yeah comparing to Chinese they are weaker but still the civ have a great solutions to anything and great powerspike.Sure Lithuanians is imo not a bad civ (probably either high B to low A tier). They have their powerspikes sure. But really man. If you compare them to a civ like Chinese who have many more options and an ecobonus that effect them the whole game. They won't stand a change on arabia. After darkage Lithuanians dont get any ecobonus (and that is pretty big) Sure the relic bonus is not bad, but its really predictable and don't forget that they miss the last +2 attack. They don't have good siege and lag options outside of their cav.
Here is btw Hera ranking Lithuanians.
The Best 1v1 Civilizations (Land maps) | AoE2
My Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/HeraMy Discord: https://discord.com/invite/4GHQ83aMy Twitter: https://twitter.com/Hera_AoeEditing and Thumbnail by K1...youtu.be
Equalizer. Mongols are b tier and can be buffed. Even pros say soOf course they need nerf, Lithuanians are just that cic who literally have no weaknesses. Who said they are B tier?
They dont have +2PAYou have camels? They have great halbs that move faster and with +2Pa.
How?! Their UT gives their skirms and halbs +2Pa. Anyway Pa already is not important in melee fight this won't change anythingThey dont have +2PA
And how does this make the tech good? Come on both of us know how troll is this. I can do the same too, I as 16xx ELO player can queue vs 700 ELO and do this, does this mean the tech is good? No 11. Now you may ask, why did you say that? Becasue the guy who Viper played against in this match was below him more than 700 ELO LOL.The Tigui Masterpiece
Channel Membership ► https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChOSBHAdhDG8J0yGHJrPoNQ/joinTwitch ► https://www.twitch.tv/theviperTheViper Merch ► https://teespring.c...www.youtube.com