I mean, they do, but the problem is that buffing other units that are weaker to begin with won't yield the same results as giving bonuses to already strong units like knights or crossbows. Imagine how strong a knight civ would be if they got the pierce armor bonus that Malian infantry get, for instance, or if the Berber stable unit discount scaled the same as the Goth infantry discount.
In any case, I don't think the problem of the knight/crossbow meta justifies the Noboru shenanigans, which was the original issue IIRC. That logic smacks of "Something must be done => this is something => therefore, this must be done!"
"If it ends up being too strong then they can tinker with it a bit."
Thats exactly what the devs hv been doing.
"But hey, **** them for nerfing other units. I dont care if theyve buffed them in the past which made them too strong. Im asking them to try buff some other units from this point of time."
Seriously, how on earth can a person type something which contradicts his own argument in the same reply? Guess getting new glasses isnt enough.
I don't disagree that it's very difficult to do. At this point, it may actually be impossible to balance in a meaningful way given the amount of civs and the variety of maps. I think this is why we are now seeing so many very minor differences between the civs around the same units (e.g. all the various archer bonuses/scout/knight bonuses). I don't think the knight and crossbow issue justifies the noboru rush, but I am disappointed that they are getting rid of it because "it annoys people". It's well established at this point that the strategy was not used often enough to justify removing it completely, either on the ladder or in pro games. To me this really about the devs forcing players to play in a certain way/the community only wanting to play in a certain way.
"Im not drunk" LULYou're now attempting to pick and choose sentences that in isolation you think contradict each other in some type of "gotcha" moment. I think it will be perfectly clear to anyone else reading this thread exactly what my general points are the reasons I have for making those points.
Fixed position is the root of the problem, not balances.I suppose I'm rambling now, but bottom line, I think the 1v1 meta is probably about as diverse as it's ever been in terms of unit choices and the like. Tatars and RBW have even made cav archers cool again. There might still be changes we want to see here and there, but I'm not sure I see diversity in the 1v1 meta as a huge problem. Team games may be another matter, though.
I have always wondered why it was called that but no longer.Flush meta where people would spend 30-40 minutes in Feudal making nothing but trash units.
That is because our societies still havn't shaken off all those hundreds of years they spent observing rich people obsessing about producing offspring to secure the future of their family dynasty.Birth control is always crucial, sadly some people dont know that.