Your tone comes off that way even if you don't intend it. Otherwise you are obviously right.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.
Agreed.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.
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.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.
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.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.
This is true of course. The lack of variety in AoE2 openings is one of the most boring things about watching competitive play.It's not great for a community that people openly advocate that its only acceptable to play Drush/FC, M@A archers or Scouts.
You are correct. That is the domain of design.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.
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.The problem was people just lost to Inca Trush more often because they didn't understand how to play it/beat it.
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.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 most of these things are problems of course.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.)