Mayans and Aztecs should be nerfed hard into the ground so we stop seeing this two dumbnut civs on repeat on arabia/arena/golden pit
so we want to nerf civs with only 50,73% winrate now?"Mayans are nerfed enough, dont talk about their eco bonus please" 1111
I mean last patch was not that bad for Mayans since aztecs got nerfed more
View attachment 179519
That's all Elo btw
View attachment 179520
1650+ Mayans jumped even more
so we want to nerf civs with only 50,73% winrate now?
The high elo winrate seems like the more concerning issue? Poster above you isn't exactly a pleb and I would imagine other elite players feel similarly even if they are less willing to express their opinions so directly. Given what makes them so good it should be possible to limit their excessive power at the top end without making them unviable for regular players on the ladder
funnily enough (despite the deceiving name) the poster above you isn't exactly a pleb either
you make no senseIt is good you agree with the idea that what someone says shouldn't be valued just because they are high elo.
you make no sense
no, that you interpretted well.
What doesnt make sense is that you disregard Darknoob's opinion over ChriSt's opinion, because as you stated ChriSt is 'not a pleb'.
You then proceed and conclude I agree with you that just because someone is high elo (aka not a pleb) his opinion shouldn't be valued. Which is exactly what you did in the first place.
I might be a noob but even 53% winrate is not nerf-worthy considering the best civs in voobly had winrates of over 60%. I do agree mayans is a really good arabia civ, but the statistics show no sign of them being broken!
To be exact on what I said earlier, Mayans is strong, annoying to play against but not completely OP like Aztec is.
We in the past had two civs who could finally punish these lame ass meso picks: franks and persians and both of these were nerfed.
Most of the games vs meso goes like this
A dark age lame that cannot be stopped (usually a boar is stolen or a villager gets lamed hunting a boar, which you cannot fight off with a scout), followed by either cheap walls with drush fc or fc or a man at arms fwd that either lead into castle age eagles or plums.
Difficult to deal with aztec in most cases unless you have the momentum. You can do a good clean build and get momentum vs aztec, but this can get taken away with a lame.
Usual recommendation is to get your forward boar immediately if you are vs meso, but if both boars are exposed its pickle.
There is a reason these two civs get picked 24/7.
I remember when we had Arabia, Hideout, Arena and Goldrush/Golden pit/Black forest in the map pool. Aztec on all maps.
gotta warn you iVik, these ppl from aoeforums might not be 2k+, but they still know impressingly well how to flip words around in your mouth.
That is never what this thread was made for, but it shows how complex balancing is and even nerfing a civ can increase their winrate :Dso we want to nerf civs with only 50,73% winrate now?
Total: 15,3 food. That's not a lot, certainly not so much as a couple in this thread mentioned.
Essentially, villagers who chop wood collect wood in their "backpack" at the normal collection rate.
The tree they're chopping loses wood at only 80% the normal collection rate.
In programming terms, the incrementer (tallying up resources collected) and decrementer (marking off resources taken) are out of sync with each other by 20%
Once the villager has collected 10 wood, only 8 wood will be removed from the tree.
This presents an interesting detail: resources are not conserved. When a villager is incremented 1 gold from a mine, there is one-fifth of a second before the mine is decremented. Both the incrementer and decrementer counters are reset at the beginning of a task, therefore cancelling the villager's work order in this 200ms period will result in a free resource.
With the clever use of hotkeys and a whole lot of micro, it is possible for Mayans to harvest infinite resources.
Because it's so touchy and takes so much micro, it's not really a viable exploit in anything other than AI scripting or extreme resource-starved maps. But still, it exists.
Mayans also get the extra villager starting with the click up to Feudal Age.
since Mayans cant go scouts and therefore dont place a lot of super early farms in feudal you can count the extra 112 food from Forage bushes.
Unit discounts are often more powerful on paper than compareable eco bonuses but are not flexible since getting them means I must make these military units and sometimes I dont.
But small bonuses accumulate and compound over time. That's why it is important to have the eco bonus as early as possible.
This is a clear example that a lot of people in the AOE2 community have very little understanding of eco bonuses.
Let me give an example. Here someone said that there is a big impact of the longer lasting resources in feudal, given the fact that Mayans have longer lasting sheep and boar, which have better gathering rates than farms.
The assumption made by that member is that Mayans can delay starting farms, and can collect more from faster sources, which gives them a great advantage. Now let's do the math:
Sheep: 0,33 resources per second per villager
Boar: 0,41 resources per second per villager
Farms: 0,32 resources per second per villager
Boar gathering is 13% faster than farms, and sheep gathering is 3% faster.
Mayans extra available boar food= 600*0,15= 90 food
(this does not mean 90 more food in the bank, just 90 food that can be gathered 13% faster than via mill or farms)
Mayans extra available sheep food= 800*0,15= 120 food
(this does not mean 120 more food in the bank, just 120 food that can be gathered 3% faster than via mill or farms)
So, let's calculate the effect (how much extra food will the Mayan player have against a normal CIV in a particular point in time in Feudal, thanks to faster collection).
Via Boar: 90*0,13= 11,7
Via Sheep: 120*0,03= 3,6
Total: 15,3 food. That's not a lot, certainly not so much as a couple in this thread mentioned.
You can also argue (and again I'm just illustrating the comment about the massive Feudal advantage) that there is an additional bonus on the buffer time gained to start building farms. Being generous let's say that at that same point in time, the Mayan player has 60 more wood in the bank. Still not an impressive and certainly not game changing bonus. As other people mentioned in the thread, the main advantage comes later in the game through longer lasting resources (e.g gold). My point is, some of these bonuses are very small when really looking into the numbers.
I think the main problem is that no one has produced a number-driven comparison (in standardized terms) between the different economic bonuses (not even SOTL). I will publish something over the next weeks because I'm sure the results will surprise some people (as an example, all pro players talk about the incredible bonus of the Huns or the Malians regarding wood. I will demonstrate that the Teuton one is better. Or also gathering rates bonuses are normally ranked above the unit discount bonuses. I will also demonstrate that in some cases, the unit discounts are more powerful).
The advantage in feudal age comes from having some extra food without having to make early farms. It has nothing to do with collection rates compared to farming. It is like having a deer or two. In m@a builds, archer builds etc. that is super helpful to get an earlier blacksmith/fletching or another eco upgrade. Together with the cheaper units it helps a lot. Also you get an extra villager. Of course those aspects of the bonus fade off eventually, but there is other elements to the mayan eco that come into play later. For the most part it is just that theirr military options are so cheap, that you don't actually need a good eco.
Concerning the teuton bonus you always have a problem in early game: there is only so many vills you can put on farms. I mean you can pull like 2, 3 or maybe 4 off wood, but that is it. Even if farms were free you can't have 30 farmers by 10 minutes and teutons don't want to play too diverse of an army in feudal age, so they have not much to spend the extra wood on if they stay with 10 wood villagers. It is still a good bonus, but it only starts to shine in castle age when you boom on multiple TCs. In post imp where you may refresh a lot of farms, it hardly matters anymore, altough the numbers say that by that time it is one of the best wood bonuses. Malians or huns shine when they make a lot of military from various buildings in feudal and castle age, which is a lot more helpful on open maps. In pure boom scenarios they do not do that much worse, because they can also save a vill or two on wood and for huns a vill or two building houses.
Can't wait for your PhD Thesis in AoE Economics though! Just do yourself a favor and try to give the pros and the natural evolution of the meta a bit more respect. If you come to very "mindblowing" results, chances are you are misevaluating something. We don't need another ricojay arguing for thousands of posts that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
This is a clear example that a lot of people in the AOE2 community have very little understanding of eco bonuses.
Let me give an example. Here someone said that there is a big impact of the longer lasting resources in feudal, given the fact that Mayans have longer lasting sheep and boar, which have better gathering rates than farms.
The assumption made by that member is that Mayans can delay starting farms, and can collect more from faster sources, which gives them a great advantage. Now let's do the math:
Sheep: 0,33 resources per second per villager
Boar: 0,41 resources per second per villager
Farms: 0,32 resources per second per villager
Boar gathering is 13% faster than farms, and sheep gathering is 3% faster.
Mayans extra available boar food= 600*0,15= 90 food
(this does not mean 90 more food in the bank, just 90 food that can be gathered 13% faster than via mill or farms)
Mayans extra available sheep food= 800*0,15= 120 food
(this does not mean 120 more food in the bank, just 120 food that can be gathered 3% faster than via mill or farms)
So, let's calculate the effect (how much extra food will the Mayan player have against a normal CIV in a particular point in time in Feudal, thanks to faster collection).
Via Boar: 90*0,13= 11,7
Via Sheep: 120*0,03= 3,6
Total: 15,3 food. That's not a lot, certainly not so much as a couple in this thread mentioned.
You can also argue (and again I'm just illustrating the comment about the massive Feudal advantage) that there is an additional bonus on the buffer time gained to start building farms. Being generous let's say that at that same point in time, the Mayan player has 60 more wood in the bank. Still not an impressive and certainly not game changing bonus. As other people mentioned in the thread, the main advantage comes later in the game through longer lasting resources (e.g gold). My point is, some of these bonuses are very small when really looking into the numbers.
I think the main problem is that no one has produced a number-driven comparison (in standardized terms) between the different economic bonuses (not even SOTL). I will publish something over the next weeks because I'm sure the results will surprise some people (as an example, all pro players talk about the incredible bonus of the Huns or the Malians regarding wood. I will demonstrate that the Teuton one is better. Or also gathering rates bonuses are normally ranked above the unit discount bonuses. I will also demonstrate that in some cases, the unit discounts are more powerful).
Hey, I am glad that you put some efforts into it to get some numbers. However, I need to disagree with you on several statements, and your argumentation is not as flawless as you believe to be by calling it "when really looking into it by the numbers".
1. A boar has 340 food, not 300
As you used sheep with 100 food each, I assume you didnt account decay (intentionally or not), with applied to boars we talk about 340 food for a boar, 680 food for two (which is 80 food more than you calculated with).
2. Where do your percentages come from ?
I can see your numbers for the gathering rate come from the aoe2 fandom wiki. Let's stick with those then.
0.41/0.32 = 1.28 => 28% Hunters work 28% faster than Farmers (you claimed 13%)
So with your model that would make the extra food get by the hunters compared to farmers to:
680*0.15*0.28 = 28 food (which is 17 food more than you claimed it to be).
Together with the sheep food its at 31 food which is double of that what you called: "certainly not so much as a couple in this thread mentioned."
And we didnt even start to calculate about additional deer pushed.
Let's say you push two deer then with your model you have 960 food from hunters overall, that makes 40 more food from hunters compared to farmers. Which leads with sheep to 43 food.
3. You heavily underestimate the influence of the wood cost:
We dont talk about saving 60 wood for one farm. You always calculated with the gathering rate of one single villager, but on a boar or on a sheep there work more than one villager. Thats like 4-7 villagers. They all would need their own farm to continue working. As an example lets take two dark age farms. Two farmers need 67 seconds to gather 43 food. Which means 67 seconds of needing the wood for those farms later. Ideally that means your lumberjacks can start collecting these 67 seconds later. 67 seconds time 4 vills can do different stuff than gathering wood for the farms. Which means they can gather wood for different things or gather different ressources. In general you would say 20 res/min is a good estimation over all ressources which means 80 ressources be it food or wood or whatever more just by delaying your two dark age farms. From 43 to 80, just by delaying stuff. Time is an important factor that needs to be optimized, especially since the game is non-linearly. The point was never about the food you get more, it was that you can save villager time on other ressources when you have better free ressources. That is why you collect berries even though they are worse from a gathering rate, but they are free and if you account the villagers needed for wood to make the farms the ress/villagers invested and time will go up for berries. Berries and other free food ressources are so important that you even in EW with a good eco still go to berries and being pushed there can mean you die.
Come on, I don't think I was really disrespectful or aggressive. Let alone did I call you names or say that what you said is BS. I just tried to mention a few points you may have missed and couldn't help, but point out that you make some really big claims which you should be careful about how you express those, as it might rub people the wrong way.Well the first thing is that there is no need to be disrespectful or aggressive. There is no need for that in the community.
The great thing about freedom of speech is that I am free to publish my analysis or my opinion, and you are free to disagree with it and consider it BS.
As you consider it BS, the best that you can do is just ignore me, and not even waste your time writing and pushing me down.
The next thing, is that it is always good to read carefully. I very specifically wrote that I'm trying to build an analysis that tries to provide a comparison at specific points in time.
Also, I said that I don't claim to have any absolute truth. I just think that there has not been any attempt so far to put an objective framework to compare economic bonuses. Whether I do that or someone else does it, I think it is an interesting analysis. And yes, I do think that some economic bonuses are not fairly valued. But again, that is my opinion and you do not need to agree.
As for the meta or the pros, look man, the stock market has been running for more than 100 years, and still today people disagree on how to value firms, and information is still not symmetric. So I don't feel I am performing a sacrilege by challenging the meta (and by the way, that's why the meta has changed so much, because new relationships and strategies get discovered).
Just disagree with me and be happy, but keep the levels of respect without calling me names.