no. i'm not. i literally have a post going right now on the official forums, with a list of my proposed changes.I mean you are a guy who always says no to any change (like 99% of people) so of course whatever I suggest you will just say no. We never agreed on something and seems we will never do.
what i do say no to, is your beyond idiotic changes that ignore facts, and data.
I think Sicilians need a huaberk nerf - and that's it. i also think Donjons and Sergeants need a slight buff. but you know what i don't think? I don't think the civ is "BROKEN OP" like a certain person.I mean if a guy like you think most of DE civs are balanced (like Sicilians) I literally have nothing to say.
and those changes haven't had the impact that they wanted. did you see why i was opposed to those changes?However, the funny is, we have now changes in the game you said no to them before, and there will be more because clearly the game became way worse with DE gimmiky stuff and broken bonuese and the game now is actually way worse than ever not better as many people say, it is waaay worse.
like for example - removing the archer armor class from Mamelukes? one of the reasons i gave was i didn't think it would have as big an impact as people wanted. and Gasp - guess what? they still aren't that common.
like i was opposed ot minor changes to the Militia line because i didn't think they would have the impact those who proposed them wanted - you know? those who want the militia line to compete with knights and archers?
lets look at the buffs they have gotten - cheaper LS, Cheaper Supplies, LS/THS +1 MA. and despite all 3 of those buffs, still pretty much unseen. which just goes to show that i was right.
know why this is? most tournaments use open maps that cater to those civs.Before in tournaments you have a draft and bans right? What we see everytime? Huns, Franks, China, Vikings, Mesos, Byz, etc. And what are the most bans? Aztecs, China, Mayans, Britons, etc.
two of those are bran new and are going to get nerfed - and let's take a look at the rest. So most tournaments run 2 - 4 bans (1-2 per player) + 1 snipe. so let's say 4 bans available. now we're down to 38 civs. of those you draft about 10 civs for a best of 3 alone. so you're telling me a top 14 civ is too strong? also i love how you didn't mention mongols in either of your list. and no. Bohemians barely see use except on closed or Arena style maps. Bulgarians? see middle of the road usage. don't see why that needs nerfs.We still have those but what we have now more? Most of DE civs are almost shown in every draft, and we see Lithuans, Burgundians, Hundus, Gurjaras, Poles and even Bohemians and Bulgarinas being picked and banned here and there.
listen up everyone - equalizer thinks a top 12-14 civ needs nerfs.What does this mean? This mean the game still getting more and more unbalanced and broken stuff and even in tournaments the drafts and bans are not enough to contain all this broken stuff with DE with it's broken bonuses. Even Dravidians with their elephants archers and the ignore armor UT are insane.
and literally no one i have seen says Dravidians need nerfs.
Literally on open maps 3 of the bottom civs are DE civs (Bohemians, Dravidians, Bengalis).