AOE2DE without inca feudal vil rush

[lecracheursagacite]

There's no use crying over spilled milk -- but there certainly is use in discussing for what reasons balance changes should be made, and when they are made -- perhaps some greater care or consideration could be made in constituting what said changes leave the civ with.

Your tone comes off that way even if you don't intend it. Otherwise you are obviously right.

If half the reason it was nerfed is/was shown to be inaccurate, people should hesitate to cheer on nerfing civs for similar reasons in the future.

Agreed.

If the remaining reason for a change was just merely a matter of personal opinion as to having preference for its existence or not as being "fun," or not -- perhaps there was less than justifiable reason for the nerf at all.

Note that there are qualitatively objective ways to look at whether or not something is fun -- things like interactivity, tedium of counterplay, scope of options for counterplay, etc -- so it is not simply a matter of personal opinion to be discarded because you disagree with it.

Balance shouldn't be a popularity contest, and that people laughably find it more comfortable to lose to an opponent one way versus another deserves scorn and derision.

Balance should not be popularity but bold part is too general. Some things are not fun to play against because they lack interactivity or are tedious or whatever and it is valid to dislike to losing to these more because of those characteristics. You get fun from playing a game either by winning or by having an enjoyable time and if you lose you need the enjoyable time part to justify playing it.

It's not great for a community that people openly advocate that its only acceptable to play Drush/FC, M@A archers or Scouts.

This is true of course. The lack of variety in AoE2 openings is one of the most boring things about watching competitive play.

Balance should not address debating whether or not to remove a strategy like Scrush because some find it distasteful to lose the game before they've made their 21st vil.

You are correct. That is the domain of design.

The problem was people just lost to Inca Trush more often because they didn't understand how to play it/beat it.

Even if people know how to play against something they can find it not fun to play against because it is uninteractive or denies them agency (they have to play very defensively) or tedious.

This is no different than Franks, for example, but one civ is the love child of the franchise and another isn't. That and their favorite streamer tells them that using Scouts and Archers to beat your opponent is "real aoe2," and "the right way to play the game," which after all is complete poppycock.

Yeah there is no arguing with this. Franks should be the golden child of the franchise as they epitomize western medieval feudal society the game is oriented around but that can be taken too far. You can also extend it to the scout rush as a whole, which is as unfun to play against as the Inca vill rush and a big contributor to the extreme walling meta people complain about.

House walling meta coupled with Inca's diminutive early-age advantages means it's more likely that you'll end up making more houses w/ Inca's than you actually need regardless. Alternatively, at a certain elo getting housed is certainly a helpful novelty, it's less of a concern than having an insane military or eco bonus like extra HP scouts/Knights, faster firing archers, extra range archers, cheaper Chinese techs coupled with a few extra vils, free wheelbarrow/hand cart, or free thumb ring (550 res) archery range units (and I'm quite certain about 40 other individual civ bonuses that would be better than any three of Inca's.)

Yeah most of these things are problems of course.

 

[IYIyTh]

The way your opponent plays always detracts from one's agency, that's the point of the game after all.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

The way your opponent plays always detracts from one's agency, that's the point of the game after all.

That is true but you look at how it is achieved and the extent to which it is denied. Better when opponent puts you in reactive position because of how they play rather than what they play and better when you have meaningful choice about how to respond when forced to play reactively.

 

[Beanslinger]

Supremacy is quite useful for more than just being a passive bonus -- you should play Spanish more often.

They do quite well as a damage sponge and against rams.

Pretending like the game should be balanced off what was intended in 1999 is probably a bad idea though, as the original iteration had many more questionable game mechanics.

(If people thought balance changes now were rough, try playing Germs blood guessing which unique unit was buffed/nerfed last.)

Spanish having good vills in imperial age is not an argument for incas needing OP vills in feudal age

 

[IYIyTh]

Spanish having good vills in imperial age is not an argument for incas needing OP vills in feudal age

There's two problems with this:

1. That's not what at all what was said. What was said is the erroneous trope that villagers aren't intended to fight, when since AOC they literally have designed one civ-specific, and one uni-civ tech for villagers to do just that even before Inca's existed. Also, it's fairly common for villagers to fight units in dark/feudal age. All this to say the statement that vils aren't intended to fight is dubious at best, if not outright false.

2. Inca villagers weren't OP pre-nerf.

 

[IYIyTh]

That is true but you look at how it is achieved and the extent to which it is denied. Better when opponent puts you in reactive position because of how they play rather than what they play and better when you have meaningful choice about how to respond when forced to play reactively.

This is no different than any other rush.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

This is no different than any other rush.

I was talking only in general terms. That is the framework you would use to explain why the Inca rush was not as unfun as people have argued it to be.

 

[NuclearPasta]

2. Inca villagers weren't OP pre-nerf.

Any other person and I'd think you were trolling 11.

 

[IYIyTh]

But they weren't.

If they were I'd imagine some of the 30-40k tournaments they might've been picked, no?

Perhaps Hidden Cup? Still no selection? At all? Boy, next you're going to tell me there was a gentlemen's agreement not to pick Inca's because they were just soooo OP.

This is the problem with popular sentiment impacting balance and reducing alternative ways to play the game.

People more comfortable playing with knights and crossbow yell and scream about any potential interruption into their routine, and unfortunately someone paid attention -- to the detriment of the game.

 

[Sigismund]

But they weren't.

If they were I'd imagine some of the 30-40k tournaments they might've been picked, no?

Perhaps Hidden Cup? Still no selection? At all? Boy, next you're going to tell me there was a gentlemen's agreement not to pick Inca's because they were just soooo OP.

This is the problem with popular sentiment impacting balance and reducing alternative ways to play the game.

People more comfortable playing with knights and crossbow yell and scream about any potential interruption into their routine, and unfortunately someone paid attention -- to the detriment of the game.

Judging whether a civ is OP based on narrow game theory perfect play is silly because it only applies to 0.01 % of playerbase. Obviously at the highest level villager rush was a suboptimal/losing strategy even for Incas.

But for vast majority of playerbase villager rush was OP, and there was more than enough data to prove that. To say the rest of playerbase should just learn to react and how to play against perfectly when it has insane winrates is stupid because they clearly weren't capable of that. The reason behind it, lack of knowledge or lack of execution is irrelevant.

Incas right now are top 10 civ on arabia type maps (and HC4 didn't have many maps like that so it makes sense they weren't picked) for skilled players. For less skilled players (let's say from 1000-1600 elo) their performance is worse due to the fact that in that elo range winrate is heavily skewed towards cavarly civilizations and Incas still perform adequality there, one of the best non-cav civs. Utilized correctly they are very strong and they don't need any buff. Sure their civ bonuses are nothing special, but their midgame tech tree is one of the best and when it comes to civ balance there should obviously be trade-off between civ bonuses and strength of military/tech tree.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

But they weren't.

If they were I'd imagine some of the 30-40k tournaments they might've been picked, no?

Perhaps Hidden Cup? Still no selection? At all? Boy, next you're going to tell me there was a gentlemen's agreement not to pick Inca's because they were just soooo OP.

This is the problem with popular sentiment impacting balance and reducing alternative ways to play the game.

People more comfortable playing with knights and crossbow yell and scream about any potential interruption into their routine, and unfortunately someone paid attention -- to the detriment of the game.

I do recall seeing them picked once by Hera in a major tournament, I think either NAC3 or HC3, but not sure that alters your point too much.

 

[IYIyTh]

If a civ is so broken as a unit/playstyle as to be described to be OP one could expect not only would they be selected, but constantly banned during such tournaments.

Pre-nerf Inca's were neither.

 

[NuclearPasta]

If they were I'd imagine some of the 30-40k tournaments they might've been picked, no?

They were played in the Hidden Cup 3 semi-finals by Joan the Maid, and then in the Finals by Kotyan Khan. Played by Mr_Yo in the KotD semis, drafted by ACCM in the RBW3 Semis and then drafted by Liereyy in the Finals. They were banned by both Liereyy and Viper in the KotD2 semis, and then Liereyy banned them again as his only ban in the Finals. They were even played at least twice at NAC3, once in a Yo vs Viper matchup and an Incas mirror during the Finals of that.

That's a lot of high level tournament games for Incas to be picked, and that's only Semis and Finals.


Incas are probably my second highest played civ after Khmer, and I can say without a doubt their villagers were overpowered. You'd lose the vil fight as any other civ, only Teutons stood a chance against them in a tower war, and Inca trush was generally an obnoxious strategy to face against due to the small but variable bonuses Incas get that means 18 pop all in trush was the meta play for them. Was it unstoppable like some people claimed, no, but it was a serious issue with the civ. Yeah I think they should get a buff to compensate for the nerf, preferable related to farms or a better team bonus, but their vils were definitely overpowered. As someone who, from what I understand, plays Incas pretty heavily you should know that better than anyone. I honestly can't fathom how you'd be either foolish or obstinate enough to insist otherwise.

 

[IYIyTh]

That's a lot of high level tournament games for Incas to be picked, and that's only Semis and Finals.

You forgot a few things! None at all in HC4 ( 0-15 sets), the most recent major 1v1 RM tourney.

You mentioned that Inca's were used a couple times in KOTD2. KOTD2 was in 2018, which predates DE. I'm not sure that's a great metric for current utilization/civ strength. Especially since towers have been nerfed HARD (not only their HP, but they throw rubber arrows/fail to target correctly, you can't kill a repair vil behind a mango....) since 2018,

Spoiler

Also, villager pathing is so bad that it acted as a de-facto nerf of Inca's. Quick walling is much more chunkier, and ungarrisoning vils is much less precise in DE than Voobly UP, for example. All things that lead to a worse off strategy.

RE: HC3 . They were used in three of the fifteen sets (R016 on) in HC3. I'm not sure what your metric of what a broken/op civ might be -- but those kind of numbers don't really support that pre-nerf Inca's were treated as "broken," or "op," which regardless of which degree/flavor you describe to, -- people have said repeatedly in this thread and actually believe they were OP. Thus, it's fair to comment on how this incorrect opinion is likely at least in part if not in whole responsible for the nerf.


RBW is a completely different game mode for which they were drafted for their eagles, and nothing more -- since the drafting rules meant there would be one meso civ leftover, we did indeed see Inca's. Empire Wars is a pointless exercise in civ balance because it fundamentally breaks the purpose of civ design by eliminating roughly 1.5 of the four ages. There are so many holes in utilizing Empire Wars as a means to drive civ balance it really deserves its own topic. The very suggestion that EW is a barometer for Incan utilization in 1v1 RM doesn't make sense in the same way ranking civs based on their UU's in CBA isn't a great barometer for 1v1 RM.


So when you say 3-30 HC3/4 sets (and I'm just spitballing, but IDK what the average amount of civs that were drafted per set were,) you're probably in the realm of someone making a conscious decision to pick pre-nerf Inca's to play or draft somewhere around 1%? I do submit that being picked at all is better than nothing, but certainly not an indicator that the civ is world-beating or OP.

I wonder what those numbers look like for Franks, Britons, Mayans, Vikings, Chinese and Aztecs.

 

[NuclearPasta]

current utilization/civ strength

broken/op civ... Inca's were treated as "broken," or "op,"

Incan utilization

certainly not an indicator that the civ is world-beating or OP.

Gotta love how a discussion about the problems with the Inca trush always becomes a discussion on Incas as a civ with you 11. No one had a problem with Incas outside the trush. Very convenient to always frame the discussion as one about Incas as a civ rather than their one super specific meta strategy.

Were pre-nerf Arambai not OP because the civ was rarely picked in 1v1 RM tournaments? I must have just hallucinated all those Arena games with an obnoxious double castle Arambai all in.

 

[IYIyTh]

But they are related, because the "super specific meta strategy," being taken away surely had justification, else why bother? It's fair to criticize that justification if there really wasn't any to begin with.

The topic of this thread literally addresses this in framing the discussion.

Balance shouldn't address a popularity contest about which ways people prefer to be killed by their opponents. They should be around whether things are "OP." Since you disagree with my contention that pre-nerf Inca's were not OP (you say "not OP, but completely unfair,") I just defer to the pro players, for whom when money is on the line and when presented an opportunity to pick pre-nerf Inca's did so <1% of the time in major 1v1 RM tournaments.

If half of the justification for the nerf was that it was too strong, that leaves us with the following:

 

[IYIyTh]

Were pre-nerf Arambai not OP because the civ was rarely picked in 1v1 RM tournaments? I must have just hallucinated all those Arena games with an obnoxious double castle Arambai all in.

Yes, yes, look at them now in all of their betterment that change wrought.

Lowest utilization in the game.

Perhaps we can continue and remove any alternative strategy available and instead of buffing commensurately just eliminate reasons to use civs until we're left with Mayans, Franks, Britons, Lith, Mongols, and Magyars.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Balance shouldn't address a popularity contest about which ways people prefer to be killed by their opponents. They should be around whether things are "OP."

Balance shouldn't, design should, and "balance" changes cover both. Power level is not the only relevant concern because a multiplayer game needs to be fun to play. Note that this does not appreciably change your argument; Briton xbows are not at all fun to play against, nor is Frank pocket Paladin spam.

 

[IYIyTh]

Balance shouldn't, design should, and "balance" changes cover both. Power level is not the only relevant concern because a multiplayer game needs to be fun to play. Note that this does not appreciably change your argument; Briton xbows are not at all fun to play against, nor is Frank pocket Paladin spam.

My point is more so jest/lampooning in suggesting the sacred cows be nerfed, not that I seriously expect them to be or that I really would like them to be.

Franks have their eco bonuses and scouts/knights. Britons have their archers. Mayans have their ungodly economic bonuses and UU. Vikings have broken/forgiveable Eco.

Inca's have trush .... eagles, and a few situational castle age units by which point they should be injured by the lack of meaningful economic bonuses.

So if "balance," isn't willing to address Franks/Britons/Vikings/Mayans, why do Inca's get the shaft? Fun is completely relative, which I'd suggest as of late means making the game easier by eliminating alternative strategies and as a result taking away depth.

 

[NuclearPasta]

Yes, yes, look at them now in all of their betterment that change wrought.

Lowest utilization in the game.

That's an even worse take than Inca vils not being op 1111

 

[TheCapybara]

Just a note: for all the talk of 'Incas have never appeared in a major 1v1 tournament', King of the Desert 3 begs to differ. Incas appeared in 35% of drafts (picked 24 times, banned twice); they then got played in 21% of series (16 times), with a 50% win rate. By comparison, Huns: drafted 33 times, banned once; played 11 times (15% of series) with 5W, 6L. Incas were played more than one of the most classic Arabia 1v1 civs in the biggest Arabia 1v1 tournament.

 

[Flow]

Just a note: for all the talk of 'Incas have never appeared in a major 1v1 tournament', King of the Desert 3 begs to differ. Incas appeared in 35% of drafts (picked 24 times, banned twice); they then got played in 21% of series (16 times), with a 50% win rate. By comparison, Huns: drafted 33 times, banned once; played 11 times (15% of series) with 5W, 6L. Incas were played more than one of the most classic Arabia 1v1 civs in the biggest Arabia 1v1 tournament.

I can easily explain that.
The experts with the precious build orders and meta plays hate the Inca villager rush, we have already established that. So what do they do?
They pick them in major tournaments giving them more exposure, even going so far as to lose games with them to make them look stronger than they are, because we know they are not strong with their lack of a meaningful eco bonus. People start picking up on it, the incan usage rate goes up. But since they really don't have anything besides their villager rush, that is what people who are not in cahoots with their opponent go for. More people get annoyed by it, because they don't know how to do deal with having their precious build orders disrupted and start to complain here and there and everywhere.
In the end, incas get nerfed to the ground and lYlTH is forced to learn a second build order. This really goes all the way to slightly the left of the top.

 

[IYIyTh]

Just a note: for all the talk of 'Incas have never appeared in a major 1v1 tournament', King of the Desert 3 begs to differ. Incas appeared in 35% of drafts (picked 24 times, banned twice); they then got played in 21% of series (16 times), with a 50% win rate. By comparison, Huns: drafted 33 times, banned once; played 11 times (15% of series) with 5W, 6L. Incas were played more than one of the most classic Arabia 1v1 civs in the biggest Arabia 1v1 tournament.

I show zero appearances from the quarters on. Used in...what, four series in the qualifiers since the start of ro64 (two of which are Vinch,).

Where are you getting your data that says they were played 16 times? At any rate, utilization fails to show the strat ever being "OP," or "broken," since we're talking what, somewhere near 7-8 series out of 50+ series between HC3/4, KOTD3....and if going by most recent, 0 at HC4.

Perhaps you're confusing the Inca civ button with Mayans?

The amount of times that these random statistics people have come up with have been debunked or are out of context is as laughable as the "like's," they get because people wish them to be true.

 

[aoeplayer]

I show zero appearances from the quarters on. Used in...what, four series in the qualifiers since the start of ro64 (two of which are Vinch,).

Where are you getting your data that says they were played 16 times? At any rate, utilization fails to show the strat ever being "OP," or "broken," since we're talking what, somewhere near 7-8 series out of 50+ series between HC3/4, KOTD3....and if going by most recent, 0 at HC4.

Perhaps you're confusing the Inca civ button with Mayans?

The amount of times that these random statistics people have come up with have been debunked or are out of context is as laughable as the "like's," they get because people wish them to be true.

King of the Desert 3 - Brackets

Navigation & Information King of the Desert 3 Official Brackets & Statistics This spreadsheet will help you keep track of the tournament progress, while also providing heaps of interesting data about the games, players and civilisations. Use the navigation below to go to the relevant sheet. TUN...

docs.google.com

Yo used them in the semis. What stats have been debunked 11, I can't remember that ever happening, just a lot of excuses from people who don't like what they imply.

 

[IYIyTh]

So you agree that he was incorrect when he said they were used 16 times when they were used 4 times since the R064?

How does that play w/ HC3 and HC4?

Are we looking at something like 5-6 / 45+ sets?

Does that strike you as an "op," civ?

Ofc not.