AOE2DE without inca feudal vil rush

[HongeyKong]

Day 1.

 

[Badfish]

 

[Degaussed]

Boycie Laugh

All of Boycie's laughs from Heroes And Villains

youtu.be

 

[Memeluke]

Can you imagine a world without lawyers

www.youtube.com

 

[IYIyTh]

My guess on impact -- Inca play rate down to ~.5% -- Franks win rate up to 60%

Everyone considers it to be a massive success.

 

[firemaster]

great nerf of lyx and robenstock

 

[Elvaenor]

My guess on impact -- Inca play rate down to ~.5% -- Franks win rate up to 60%

Everyone considers it to be a massive success.

 

[HongeyKong]

Day 2.

 

[HongeyKong]

A month and a half have passed, was it a right tweak? Are incas utterly weak now? Should the devs have given them something in return?

 

[The Bloodless]

Feels amazing

 

[fluppets]

A month and a half have passed, was it a right tweak? Are incas utterly weak now? Should the devs have given them something in return?

Overall for the game it was very good, but incas could use some love; The blacksmith upgrades for villagers should be dropped entirely and replaced by something to emphasize their versatile counter-play.

 

[IYIyTh]

Play rate heading to sub 1%. Down nearly .7% across the board in play rate, and they were about slightly less than average utilization rate pre-nerf. The people who tried to play them to prove they were fine post nerf have given up and their utilization is cratering. Already bottom 3 utilization in 1650+. Down from 2.6%-1.38% utilization -- meaning that the 1650+ range in general does not view them as a civ worth playing.

Down in win % for every elo but 1650+, which hilariously is a fairly obvious result of a few being clever by half. Since they received a pure nerf and no commensurate buff the only reasonable explanation for the increase in that elo range is a few elite (2.4-5k) high rated players going out of their way to use them attempting to justify the nerf after the patch, given the small and ever decreasing sample size of 1650+ games using Incas.

It was always obvious this was going to crater their utilization -- and it has.

Inca's were seldom picked in tournaments pre-nerf, and they will continue to be left off as they are the third best meso civ, but now are just bad in comparison to other civs (lack of meaningful eco bonuses, meaningful military bonuses,) that "has eagles," can't justify their pick.

They have the worst civ bonuses in the game. Flexibility only matters if you can get to it, and if every other civ in the game can do something better earlier, that's not a good angle for a civ. It is arguable that only Burmese are a worse civ.

I can't wait for the thread about nerfing their team bonus next.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Since they received a pure nerf and no commensurate buff the only reasonable explanation for the increase in that elo range is a few high rated players going out of their way to use them attempting to justify the nerf after the patch.

The other explanation is that all the people trying them to abuse the cheese strat and failing are no longer playing them.

 

[Degaussed]

If you don't know how to play Incas without vill rushing, that honestly says more about you than this incredible civ.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

If you don't know how to play Incas without vill rushing, that honestly says more about you than this incredible civ.

I for one would be happy to read your explanation of this.

 

[EssTee]

To give some numbers to Incas from aoestats.io :

Elo range	Winrate in %	place/37 civs
<1000	49,03	20
1000-1250	50,11	15
1250-1650	51,04	12
1650+	54,47	2

So in my humble opinion its not as bad as some people want to make it, Incas seems to be a very playable civ

 

[IYIyTh]

The other explanation is that all the people trying them to abuse the cheese strat and failing are no longer playing them.

If it wasn't a broken strat I would agree. Since their win % actually increased in 1650+ (the only range it did,) despite receiving a pure nerf, either I am right and a few elite players went out of their way to attempt to influence the numbers, or you are right (and the strat stopped being utilized, since it wasn't as good as playing meta/straight,), and by extension, I am right. (It shouldn't have been nerfed in the first place since it was apparently not a great strat, according to the stats.) Pretty sure I'm right though, especially given how many high rated streamers fell over themselves to try to use them and prove Inca Trush being gone was fine post-nerf, jumping on the casual dumbing of the game down bandwagon.

Spoiler

Clips of them falling over themselves to go ineffective/pointless castle age towers while actually falling behind playing boring meta the entire time were my favorite.

Either way, the utilization dropping from 2.68% - 1.38% in 1650+ speaks for itself.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

If it wasn't a broken strat I would agree. Either I am right and a few elite players went out of their way to attempt to influence the numbers, or you are right (and the strat stopped being utilized, since it wasn't as good as playing meta/straight,), and by extension, I am right.

I just mean that when a cheese strat like that is popular it gets people to play the civ and that tends to depress the winrate because they don't necessarily know the civ very well or practice the strat enough to perform it optimally. That stops after a huge nerf eliminate the strat, leaving only the people (like Degaussed I will assume) who are dedicated Inca players and therefore more likely to win with Inca than the average player at their elo.

 

[IYIyTh]

I just mean that when a cheese strat like that is popular it gets people to play the civ and that tends to depress the winrate because they don't necessarily know the civ very well or practice the strat enough to perform it optimally. That stops after a huge nerf eliminate the strat, leaving only the people (like Degaussed I will assume) who are dedicated Inca players and therefore more likely to win with Inca than the average player at their elo.

If that's the case and elo actually increased it would formally disprove a major reason for the nerf in the first place, ie: that it was overpowered. Even high rated players like Nicov and Project Belgium openly stated this, while players like Daniel and Lyx openly disagreed.

Are you telling me people were wrong, on the internet?

I'm not saying I agree with the premise/conclusions, since I think the utilization rate is a far better metric of how the game perceives Inca's. Frankly, the answer is they don't -- since they don't play them.

Bottom four civ.

Congrats, friends, you've killed another civ and added it to the "can play boring meta," pile.

 

[Elvaenor]

(It shouldn't have been nerfed in the first place since it was apparently not a great strat, according to the stats.)

Just because it wasn't a great strat didn't mean it wouldn't deserve a nerf. I don't have any stats but I think it's relatively safe to say that the vast majority of players thought it was complete garbage to play against. It was one of the most controversial strategies and it ruined games for a lot of people so in order to make the game better for (almost) everyone they decided to nerf it. Seems an acceptable reason to nerf something for me. I think, while very important, balance is not the end goal of aoe. It is to make a game that is enjoyable for as many people as possible.

You are of course on the short end of the stick with this nerf but at least I hope you can find peace in the fact that the game overall is more enjoyable now.

 

[IYIyTh]

Controversial =/= warrant a nerf.

The fact that it evoked such a response and high level pro's couldn't get on the same page as to whether it needed a nerf or not means it should have been left alone.

Instead, the game was dumbed down to support casual players, which is in line with a lot of trends w/ DE.

Enjoyability is entirely subjective. I enjoyed the game (and certainly Lyx tournament games,) more with Inca's pre-nerf. Especially when perceived lower rated players could defeat superior "meta," players by utilizing an alternative strat.

By removing alternative strategies you get the same boring game played out the same 1-3 different ways, and in the end -- I would argue the game is less enjoyable. Meta players no longer have to worry about something different, having to adjust their builds more than one vil from food to wood or gold. They don't have to scout/perceive as much. The game thus becomes less intelligent, more boring.

To each their own -- but the utilization % speaks for itself. Inca's are a bottom tier civ.

 

[Elvaenor]

I know that enjoyability is subjective, that's why I mentioned the majority of players instead of everyone.

 

[IYIyTh]

I know that enjoyability is subjective, that's why I mentioned the majority of players instead of everyone.

Which you have no way to account for objectively.

 

[EssTee]

but the utilization % speaks for itself. Inca's are a bottom tier civ.

Thats clearly not true, the only thing you can say from that is that Incas are seldom picked. But if people pick them, then they perform much better than a bottom tier civ, as you can see from the stats I posted above.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

If that's the case and elo actually increased it would formally disprove a major reason for the nerf in the first place, ie: that it was overpowered. Even high rated players like Nicov and Project Belgium openly stated this, while players like Daniel and Lyx openly disagreed.

I thought not being fun to play against was the more compelling justification for the nerf. I have no strong opinion on whether it was actually OP or not. That pros disagreed as you say suggests to me it wasn't quite as broken as the loudest detractors said. But things can be unfun and unhealthy for a game without strictly being "OP" so I think whether it was or not should not really be that important.

I'm not saying I agree with the premise/conclusions, since I think the utilization rate is a far better metric of how the game perceives Inca's. Frankly, the answer is they don't -- since they don't play them.

Play rate is somewhat correlated with perception of strength but not perfectly. There are plenty of examples of niche characters in MOBAs that fit the playrate/winrate profile of 1650+ Incas. If the civ can be awkward to play in certain ways and doesn't distinguish itself (as you say they are overshadowed by the two meso civs) it is very plausible it would end up this way.