AOE-II DE After KOTD5 Finished, it became more clear that those civs need more nerfs to be balanced and how they give unfair match up.

[MAE_JO]

Hello everyone,

I think we all saw the great tournament KOTD5 that brought a lot of enjoy to us - Thanks to Memb and all the organizers and the players - and at the same time it showed to us what are the most imbalanced civs again and how cleat it is that they still need more changes to bring a fair play.

According to aoestats.com, these civs got a veru high winrate on the tournament, and also in the ladder (some of them not that much high but still imbalanced), so here I will just put a list of all the problematic civ that it is hard to deal with in short, and just short hints about what we can do to each:

1- Lithuanians: Relic bonus is crazy and the UU is broken, also trash units may need a nerf for either the speed or the UT. The ignore armour mechanic thing is just a big mistake to be a thing in game especially as a free bonus and even free attacks from relics! Also their UT that gives skirms and halbs +2Pa needs a nerf, maybe make it +1Pa or make it cost more.

2- Eagles in General: I think it is clear that the +5 that the devs added to Eagles food cost didn't change anything of their broken spam so they need +5 more.

3- All the Meso civs (Crazy winrate in KOTD5 especially Incas): IMO all the 3 civs need a nerf regardless the general eagles food cost nerf. Nerf Aztscs team bonus and monks hp bonus, nerf Mayans eco and nerf everything Incas got newly to them.

Actually I am surprised that the devs buffed a civ like Incas in the first place, why they needed to buff them?! They were very good and need no bonus at all, we can say the same for Ethiopians also who got a huge buffs and also Malay.

4- Brokengundians: The civ name itself say it (Brokengundians), although the devs nerfed them but nah not enough, I think the UU, the stable discount & the team bonus all still need nerfs. Maybe also their gunpowder.

5- Huns: Regardless any winrate they have either on the ladder or tournaments, just when was the last time that this civ got a nerf?! Ironically they got a buff last patch LOL! IMO Huns need at least 2 nerfs, one for their team bonus, and the other one they should either lose xbow upgrade or Paladin.

6- Franks: They should lose the castle discount and maybe also the bushes bonus.

7- Chinese: Lets start with removing the camel line completely from their tech tree if possible or give them eco nerf to their techs discount.


8- Byzantines: One of the most annoying, problematic, and hardest civs to play against. High winrate in top tier ranked, and benig picked/banned in every draft and every tournament.

Two things should happen to Byzantines; their counter unit discount should go down to 15% and their imp discount upgrade should be 25% instead of 33% cheaper.

9- Gurjaras: Although they got many nerfs last patch which is a good step for the better, however, it seems the civ still a hard obstacle to play against even with the last buff for the infantry. Maybe losing 1 of the bushes under the TC and also a nerf for the team bonus from 25% to 15% will be good.

10- Portuguese: Their gold cost should down to 15%. They may need more later, their team bpnus also is strong may need a nerf. I actually don't know why the devs buffed them, they were good already.

11- Malians: Like Portuguese, I also don't know why the devs buffed them, their UU and also eco may need a nerf.

12- Ethiopians: Their machingun xbows are so hard to deal with, maybe instead of 18% make it 13%. Also their UU is super strong now.

_______________________
Civs that should get some nerfs regardless tournaments or ladder winrates:

* Berbers: Stable discount should be 10% castle, 15% imp and vills speed should be 5% at all ages. Also their UU is insane, it may need a cost nerf.

* Cumans: I said it before but I am sorry I have to say it again. Cumans with cheap military buildings and at the sametime have 2 TCs in feudal is just unfair and very hard to punish them with this. Pls at least remove the archery range discount from them.

* Teuuuuuuuutons: With all due respect, the farm discount may need a nerf, and honestly I don't like the free melee armour for stable units, maybe make it a UT or somthing, if you are a cav civ or infantry civ with bad CA or Xbows, you just literally resign vs Teutons.
______________________________________
Civs that need some buffs and help or just a small changes:

* Saracens: A great civ that did very well in KOTD, but for the sake of God just pls reduce the Mameluke gold cost. Make it 70 instead of 85. Also give their CA or light cav a bonus since it fits their identity. Also their imp UT is so bad and usless 99% of the time.

* Celts: Can we pls get a bloodline for them at least or a plate barding armour? Also pls get back their dark age infantry speed bonus.

* Burmese: The UU should be a little bit cheaper and also faster, and also both of their UTs need a change.

* Persians: Both of their UTs need a change. Maybe give them UT that make their knight line regenrate hp or help their CA?


* What I said here in this topic may not reflect the opinion of the majority, but we open the door for discussion and exchange of views. If you disagree with us, express your opinion with respect.

Best Regards

 

[Progeusz]

Only 18 out of 42 civs are broken. I expected worse when entering this topic!

 

[MAE_JO]

Only 18 out of 42 civs are broken. I expected worse when entering this topic!

Ah many thanks, I forgot to add Portuguese. I will add them. Your name remind me of them. Also note that I said that those civs are mostly imbalanced, not like literally broken (some of them are broken though).

 

[vince]

no.

 

[USC_kiky]

This game is clearly broken because almost half of the civs have a win rate that's less than 50%!!!! What's even worse is that there are around the same amount of civs whose win rates are greater than 50%!!!

 

[AttilaTheHun]

So, half of the civs are broken based on KOTD5. But some of the civs seem to be not based on that tournament at all with statements like "they had a low pick rate in KOTD5".

This list much be clearly true.

 

[ponciliano]

There are team games, various maps with different resources distribution, naval gameplay... you shouldn't balance civs based only on 1v1 arabia.

 

[Instinctz]

According to aoestats.com, these civs got a veru high winrate on the tournament, and also in the ladder (some of them not that much high but still imbalanced), so here I will just put a list of all the problematic civ that it is hard to deal with in short, and just short hints about what we can do to each:

well let's see what equalizer has to say. wait. were basing this on a tournament that doesn't even use a ladder map?
totally seems reasonable. /sarcasm.

1- Lithuanians: Relic bonus is crazy and the UU is broken, also trash units may need a nerf for either the speed or the UT. The ignore armour mechanic thing is just a big mistake to be a thing in game especially as a free bonus and even free attacks from relics! Also their UT that gives skirms and halbs +2Pa needs a nerf, maybe make it +1Pa or make it cost more.

oh look. the noob continues his crusade against lithuanians.
who posted a 54.55% winrate in the tournament, but only 52.5% winrate on non tournament arabia

yeah i'm not seeing them overperform.
Moving on.

2- Eagles in General: I think it is clear that the +5 that the devs added to Eagles food cost didn't change anything of their broken spam so they need +5 more.

funny, i saw Archers dominate, not Eagles. but you always were one to lie to push your agenda.

3- All the Meso civs (Crazy winrate in KOTD5 especially Incas): IMO all the 3 civs need a nerf regardless the general eagles food cost nerf. Nerf Aztscs team bonus and monks hp bonus, nerf Mayans eco and nerf everything Incas got newly to them.

ahh yes, were going to drop the nerf hammer based on a map that isn't in the map pool, in a tournament that had a total of maybe a couple hundred games. again you're biased. not only that but you said you were taking ladder performance into account too and uh...aztecs suck there.

4- Brokengundians: The civ name itself say it (Brokengundians), although the devs nerfed them but nah not enough, I think the UU, the stable discount & the team bonus all still need nerfs. Maybe also their gunpowder.

Ahh burgundians. the civ who was played a whole 5 times. tell me you're biased without telling me you're biased. especially when you factor in their dismal ladder performance (sub 45%).

5- Huns: Regardless any winrate they have either on the ladder or tournaments, just when was the last time that this civ got a nerf?! Ironically they got a buff last patch LOL! IMO Huns need at least 2 nerfs, one for their team bonus, and the other one they should either lose xbow upgrade or Paladin.

why do they need a nerf? you admit yourself their winrates aren't that good.
so which is it equalizer. are you basing these on facts and data or your own personal opinion? don't bother. we already know the answer.

6- Franks: They should lose the castle discount and maybe also the bushes bonus.

Franks with a 52% winrate in the tournament and sub 52% on ladder need nerfs? why?

7- Chinese: Lets start with removing the camel line completely from their tech tree if possible or give them eco nerf to their techs discount.

omg, look you actually found a civ with a good winrate to try to nerf. even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

8- Byzantines: One of the most annoying, problematic, and hardest civs to play against. High winrate in top tier ranked, and benig picked/banned in every draft and every tournament.

a 47% winrate in tournament and a sub 52% winrate in ladder doesn't scream nerf me. but then again you again are just pushing your own agenda.

9- Gurjaras: Although they got many nerfs last patch which is a good step for the better, however, it seems the civ still a hard obstacle to play against even with the last buff for the infantry. Maybe losing 1 of the bushes under the TC and also a nerf for the team bonus from 25% to 15% will be good.

again, nothing about them screams nerfs. even if they did do decently in this tournament they aren't lighting up the ladder anymore.

10- Portuguese: Their gold cost should down to 15%. They may need more later, their team bpnus also is strong may need a nerf. I actually don't know why the devs buffed them, they were good already.

11- Malians: Like Portuguese, I also don't know why the devs buffed them, their UU and also eco may need a nerf.

maybe you should look at pre nerf statistics and stop being so biased and you'd understand why they got buffed. but again you just hate when a civ is even halfway decent.

12- Ethiopians: Their machingun xbows are so hard to deal with, maybe instead of 18% make it 13%. Also their UU is super strong now.

literally nothing about this civ screams overpowered and nerfworthy. see. again proving you're basing this on bias and not data.

Civs that should get some nerfs regardless tournaments or ladder winrates:

* Berbers: Stable discount should be 10% castle, 15% imp and vills speed should be 5% at all ages. Also their UU is insane, it may need a cost nerf.

* Cumans: I said it before but I am sorry I have to say it again. Cumans with cheap military buildings and at the sametime have 2 TCs in feudal is just unfair and very hard to punish them with this. Pls at least remove the archery range discount from them.

* Teuuuuuuuutons: With all due respect, the farm discount may need a nerf, and honestly I don't like the free melee armour for stable units, maybe make it a UT or somthing, if you are a cav civ or infantry civ with bad CA or Xbows, you just literally resign vs Teutons.

so basically - you know better then data and actual performance. yeah. biased biased biased.

Saracens: A great civ that did very well in KOTD, but for the sake of God just pls reduce the Mameluke gold cost. Make it 70 instead of 85. Also give their CA or light cav a bonus since it fits their identity. Also their imp UT is so bad and usless 99% of the time.

"we're basing these on this tgournament, but despite this one doing really good it needs buffs"
LOLOLOL

* Celts: Can we pls get a bloodline for them at least or a plate barding armour? Also pls get back their dark age infantry speed bonus.

Celts are currently sitting at 53% winrate on ladder - higher then at least 10 of the civs you want nerfed.
just a little bit ago you said that you didn't understand why the devs buffed 2 civs that were mediocre at best before, but here you are wanting to buff a civ that needs no buffs. again, bias is your name and game.

* Burmese: The UU should be a little bit cheaper and also faster, and also both of their UTs need a change.

* Persians: Both of their UTs need a change. Maybe give them UT that make their knight line regenrate hp or help their CA?

oh look. two civs i could get behind buffing.

 

[Instinctz]

you shouldn't balance civs based only on 1v1 arabia.

not to mention that this version of arabia is very different from ladder arabia.

 

[MAE_JO]

yeah i'm not seeing them overperform.
Moving on.

Whatever you see this won't change the fact how their UU is so OP and broken with their cheap cost and ignore armour mechanic. Even their relic bonus and trash units UT & speed are insane. One Lithuanians got their full pieces there is literally no weakness nor solution to counter them.

funny, i saw Archers dominate, not Eagles. but you always were one to lie to push your agenda.

LOL, this is why the 3 mesos have above 60%, just because archers 11. The Eagle line still broken.

ahh yes, were going to drop the nerf hammer based on a map that isn't in the map pool, in a tournament that had a total of maybe a couple hundred games. again you're biased. not only that but you said you were taking ladder performance into account too and uh...aztecs suck there.

The ladder stats are not everything to judge. According to ladder Goths now in top 5 civs LOL.

Ahh burgundians. the civ who was played a whole 5 times. tell me you're biased without telling me you're biased. especially when you factor in their dismal ladder performance (sub 45%)

Their UU & stable discount abd also team bonus still problematic.

why do they need a nerf? you admit yourself their winrates aren't that good.
so which is it equalizer. are you basing these on facts and data or your own personal opinion? don't bother. we already know the answer.

They are always one of the best civs and they didn't get any nerf.

Franks with a 52% winrate in the tournament and sub 52% on ladder need nerfs? why?

This won't change the fact how Franks need a nerf also.

omg, look you actually found a civ with a good winrate to try to nerf. even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

winrate in tournament and a sub 52% winrate in ladder doesn't scream nerf me. but then again you again are just pushing your own agenda.

Yet being one of the most annoying c8vs to deal with and being banned a lot by the pros here and there. Their counter units discount is crazy and also the cheap imp.

again, nothing about them screams nerfs. even if they did do decently in this tournament they aren't lighting up the ladder anymore.

Yes they are. Gurjaras still top tier civs.

literally nothing about this civ screams overpowered and nerfworthy. see. again proving you're basing this on bias and not data.

so basically - you know better then data and actual performance. yeah. biased biased biased.

we're basing these on this tgournament, but despite this one doing really good it needs buffs"
LOLOLOL

11 so you think 85g Mameluke and useless new UT are fine?!

Celts are currently sitting at 53% winrate on ladder - higher then at least 10 of the civs you want nerfed.
just a little bit ago you said that you didn't understand why the devs buffed 2 civs that were mediocre at best before, but here you are wanting to buff a civ that needs no buffs. again, bias is your name and game.

Nah Celts are really bad, their tech tree is F tier.

 

[MAE_JO]

O

There are team games, various maps with different resources distribution, naval gameplay... you shouldn't balance civs based only on 1v1 arabia.

Ofcourse it should be based on Arabia. It is the most played map.

 

[Instinctz]

Their UU & stable discount abd also team bonus still problematic.

So winrates would reflect that right? Stats > your opinion every time.

If you really want to nerf stuff on civs because you view rhem as problems, and that civ isn't even overperforming, you're obligated to buff them elsewhere.

Stop being biased. Either solve problems or shut up.

Even the devs say that they balance for 45 to 55%. So keep living in your dream world

 

[Umdeuter]

That thread is actually an interesting showcase for one thing: When discussing balance it is important to be clear what you are balancing for. And there is no clearance about that in the current AoE2 scene.

This thread tries to bring Civs down towards B-tier-standards. If you think that's the goal, then you're rightfully unhappy with current changes. Because current changes made it quite obvious that the devs rather look for balancing civs towards A-tier-standards. (Perhaps even high A-tier-standards, as they created 3-4 new S-Tier civs recently and didn't show much intent to bring Portuguese a bit down again.)

 

[Instinctz]

This thread tries to bring Civs down towards B-tier-standards.

and even that's debatable, as the op is making changes to civs that are both above (buffs) and below (nerfs) or at this threshold by viper and heras standards.

 

[Umdeuter]

Yeah, I think we don't need to discuss that he didn't do a great job with his suggestions overall