If devs seem to want to get rid of unique strats they wouldnt add new civs with invisible unitsThe nerf to Incas has nothing to do with whether Incas are a good civ or not and everything to do with people being annoyed by the vill and tower rushes. How many pros have spoken out against it? They hate playing against it in ranked queue. It deviates from the "meta" too much (see below). I would not be surprised if Hoang single handily gets Celts nerfed because that also annoys pros and seemingly everyone else on the ladder. If you so much as make a siege workshop with celts you get called a hoang copycat at low elos.
It's clear after what we have seen with the balancing over the past little while that the devs don't care about actually balancing the game in an interesting and unique way, the only thing they seem to care about is
A) getting rid of any unique strats/advantages (except for "new" civs);
B) ensuring that every game the battles revolves solely around some combination of archers and knights.
Unique units are a meme at this point. They already came for Berserkers, Arambai, Plumed Archers, Conqs, and Kipchaks. Next they will come for Mangudai and CKNs and don't be surprised if Britons lose their range bonus soon.
I get that balancing games is hard, like really hard, but rather than take that challenge head on, what they have decided to do is make every civ basically the same with very slight differences between them. The end result is that it's like an eternal ground hog day of on the aoe2 ladder, regardless of the match-ups we get the exact same game every single time, but you know what people seem to enjoy it, it's what they are comfortable with, so I guess I am in the minority.
It was actually one of the most refreshing things about the aoe4 trailer (which otherwise was not very appealing to me) was that they said they wanted each civ to have a very unique feel and playstyle. It seems that whatever aspect of that was still in aoe2 is slowly being taken away.
Armor is the core of the rush, attack is just bonus, armor should be removed instead. Maybe they can add fletching to their vils if they want to keep vil rush still somewhat viable.I think Inca vil rush nerf has been a needed change for a long time, was probably the most absurd strat in the game.
However, even in normal games extra tanky vils was one of the Incas strongest bonuses, so removing from feudal without compensation is rough. Personally I think removing the attack bonus from blacksmith upgrades and keeping the armor (while the less important upgrade still improved vil rush) may have been a better solution, or alternatively giving free +1 pierce armor once in feudal would at least give defense against archers (while still completely removing vil rush potential). Nevertheless even without a compenstation buff I think they will be ok civ, just not particularly unique or powerful. Many people underestimate their economy, the house bonus alone is stronger than huns early and not much worse later - and still have powerful army options.
Its just a close to generic tower rush, not a vil rush.Why people keep talking about strategies not being viables anymore. Tower rush will be more viable with incas than with almost any other civ. And it's still a valid strategy.
It's just it won't be stupidly easy to perform and stupidly hard to defend against anymore.
Definitely a noticeable nerf for pocket TG play which I think was warranted given their strength there... probably a nerf for 1v1s but only a very small one (could even be a buff if people start utilising castle age taxmen better). I think it makes a lot more sense thematically (obviously that's secondary to gameplay tho) since the taxmen are much more of an early frankish germanic thing whereas chivalry is more of a later franks/french thing.so what do people think about the franks change? is it a buff? is it a nerf? is it warranted?
Just to remind you, this is what he had said in the pastRandom guy X: "Inca nerf will completely kill Incas, they were bad anyway."
Me: "Yeah makes sense."
Pro player Y: "Incas are still good, this was needed."
Me: "Yeah, maybe that makes sense too."
Random guy X to Y: "No, I don't agree with you because of a, b, c."
Me: "Well, yeah maybe his experience with the civ is different from Y's because they play at different levels, so yeah possible. Not like there's a fixed answer for what's a good civ anyway."
So all this is fine till...
Random Guy Z to X: "Lol how can you argue against the pro player. What do you know about the game? Just believe him when he says Incas are good. People like you are the reason why pro players here don't voice their opinion."
Me: "Okay. This Z guy seems to be a douche. He thinks he's defending the pro player but he is basically ensuring that non-pro players don't voice their opinion (unless it is to agree with the pros)."
Do some people think that all pros have the same opinion on Incas? 11 If not, then let why not respect the divergence of someone's opinion from one pro player here.
You don't think games played and rating matters when being able to tell whether pathing is "better," or at the very least -- "different," in one system or another?
I'm going to go out a limb that someone's 500 games at 1300 aren't going to be as better for comparison as someone at 1100 games at ~1600.
When you think about it critically -- I've probably tested DE more than Microsoft.
It's because they do matter. A 1300's interpretation of whether pathing "works better in DE," is discernibly different than someone at 1600 or 2100.
It's not grandiose, it's a pretty simple concept. People are free to be insecure of their rating, but it's like creating a "Definitive Edition," of chess.
Would you take the advice of an amateur more seriously, or the view of an CM/IM/GM on the changes/impacts to how pieces move since the developers couldn't quite get it right from previous iterations?
I surely hope you don't take advice on your health based on how much you like the person presenting the information -- granted, I'm sure given the world's state/pandemic there's plenty of people who do. (was going to say "morons," but wouldn't want people to think I was talking about them -- they might dismiss my internet argument out of hand, and how would I proceed with my own life if someone disagreed with or didn't like me on the internet?)
No, because the variance of skill at which the games are played is actually extremely relevant, especially in the context you use. I don't know why you can't acknowledge that. (Actually, I think I know why :P )
If I say I have played 1k games at 500 ELO, my perspective is different than someone with 1k games at 1600, 1800, or 2100 ELO. Kipchak's might not be broken at 500 ELO. M@A rushes might end games in ten minutes at 1300 ELO. Inca Trush may be hard to defend to someone at 1500 ELO, etc. Not sure the ~1300 range is the best for how pathing is, or how it should be compared to how it was.
I'm surpised by your statement here so I looked for the VODIt's not like the pros' opinion is unanimous here. Jordan and Tatoh's reaction on stream yesterday was not too happy with the Incas nerf.