I make this topic to discuss the balance changes being pushed by much of the AoC community ‘celebrities,’ (Zero, Carlos, the organizers of the balance tournys, etc).
I will initially organize this by general argument:
1) People say Huns are too dominant on open maps, that Vikings are too dominant on water, (etc.) and therefore we should ‘balance’ the civs by a patch. This seems to me ridiculous for two reasons: first, if you want to see ‘alternate’ games (that is to say games that don’t follow the meta) then play alternate settings/civs/maps. The Saiyanhood (*** fail) tourney forced players to use all civs for what they were. Moreover, maybe play less arabia and then you’ll see huns less (duh). Second, if after a patch is pushed through, I can’t play my Hun arabia game the same way anymore (or Viking island, etc), then that is pretty pitiful. In the interest of expanding strategical diversity you eliminate people’s favorite (the most popular) strategies.
2) People argue whether the balance patch will ‘split the community.’ My initial response is well DUH it’s going to split the community…you see players playing 1.0c on gameranger, 1.4 on voobly, AoF, HD version, and then some scattered people playing various patches (all the while arguing over which is best). So open your eyes, the community is already pretty split. However, people point out that if the patch is official, then people complain after a while, but accept it. And yes, that is true to an extent. But keep in mind that while 1.4 is the standard on Voobly, that is because it was official. Therefore, I think anyone who wants to make balance patch should work with those who could make it official (Carlos is doing that to an extent, and Zero…well let’s not get into my opinions on Zero :P…)
3) Some people say AoC is 'solved,' 'stagnant,' etc...but lets be honest, that is total bull, to think that I have never even seen a professional play DM on border dispute or a nomad game where players start in the castle age, and yet you tell me the game is solved??? :roll:
So essentially what it comes down to is this: some want change/lasting diversity in strategies/etc, and others want their beloved cavalry archers and war galleys.
To avoid unnecessary conflict, anyone wanting to make a balance patch should be mature enough to try and meet both demands. Period.
If you want diversity in strategies, maybe play a DM on decentring, or start in the feudal age on arabia, or more turbo random, or a 50 pop games (these are weird; big monk rushes :P), or just play more alternate maps like vital river, etc. That way, the other people can still play their Hun Arabia games without splitting the community.
If you still, for whatever reason, feel that a patch is necessary, some things should be kept in mind.
1) Fixing known bugs should be priority, because before you can make something better, you have to finish it, right?
2) Second, the patch should be made with the intention of being official in the short/long term, because if that is not the final end, then you are simple splitting the community.
3) Third, diversity would be best added by adding stuff, not changing stuff. Specifically, add new civs (that won’t change hun arabia, right?)…one thing I’ve always wanted was civs that couldn’t build archery ranges because there are civs that can’t build stables (that would prevent xbow wars…)
4) Next, actual changes to the game should be ‘uncontroversial’ for the most part (no change is completely uncontroversial). For example, I think an official patch moving coinage to castle and banking to imperial would be welcomed by most. But a patch nerfing hun CA would fundamentally change the most popular (so by definition the most loved) strategies, which is obviously not in the interest of the majority. It would take an immature and unfair balance patch maker who thinks that they can just change the game simply so people have to play their preferred way.
5) Finally, keep in mind the global consequences of changes. What I mean is illustrated by buffing fire ships. Currently, fireships destroy galleys and war galleys in small numbers. If you buff them with the intention of making them a viable option on islands (in larger numbers), then you inherently will be making them way too powerful in small numbers. Fireships are meant as a counter to galleys, and they work circumstantially, but again, to fundamentally change the way a Viking islands war is played is simply not fair. (And personally, after playing intense arabia games, I like single-unit games on the water for a change).
And really guys, remember that if the game was really that bad, it wouldn't be so popular still after so many years...
Lastly, I never see any ‘all tech’ games played, especially in tournaments…perhaps that should be a thing…it would really change things up ;P
I will initially organize this by general argument:
1) People say Huns are too dominant on open maps, that Vikings are too dominant on water, (etc.) and therefore we should ‘balance’ the civs by a patch. This seems to me ridiculous for two reasons: first, if you want to see ‘alternate’ games (that is to say games that don’t follow the meta) then play alternate settings/civs/maps. The Saiyanhood (*** fail) tourney forced players to use all civs for what they were. Moreover, maybe play less arabia and then you’ll see huns less (duh). Second, if after a patch is pushed through, I can’t play my Hun arabia game the same way anymore (or Viking island, etc), then that is pretty pitiful. In the interest of expanding strategical diversity you eliminate people’s favorite (the most popular) strategies.
2) People argue whether the balance patch will ‘split the community.’ My initial response is well DUH it’s going to split the community…you see players playing 1.0c on gameranger, 1.4 on voobly, AoF, HD version, and then some scattered people playing various patches (all the while arguing over which is best). So open your eyes, the community is already pretty split. However, people point out that if the patch is official, then people complain after a while, but accept it. And yes, that is true to an extent. But keep in mind that while 1.4 is the standard on Voobly, that is because it was official. Therefore, I think anyone who wants to make balance patch should work with those who could make it official (Carlos is doing that to an extent, and Zero…well let’s not get into my opinions on Zero :P…)
3) Some people say AoC is 'solved,' 'stagnant,' etc...but lets be honest, that is total bull, to think that I have never even seen a professional play DM on border dispute or a nomad game where players start in the castle age, and yet you tell me the game is solved??? :roll:
So essentially what it comes down to is this: some want change/lasting diversity in strategies/etc, and others want their beloved cavalry archers and war galleys.
To avoid unnecessary conflict, anyone wanting to make a balance patch should be mature enough to try and meet both demands. Period.
If you want diversity in strategies, maybe play a DM on decentring, or start in the feudal age on arabia, or more turbo random, or a 50 pop games (these are weird; big monk rushes :P), or just play more alternate maps like vital river, etc. That way, the other people can still play their Hun Arabia games without splitting the community.
If you still, for whatever reason, feel that a patch is necessary, some things should be kept in mind.
1) Fixing known bugs should be priority, because before you can make something better, you have to finish it, right?
2) Second, the patch should be made with the intention of being official in the short/long term, because if that is not the final end, then you are simple splitting the community.
3) Third, diversity would be best added by adding stuff, not changing stuff. Specifically, add new civs (that won’t change hun arabia, right?)…one thing I’ve always wanted was civs that couldn’t build archery ranges because there are civs that can’t build stables (that would prevent xbow wars…)
4) Next, actual changes to the game should be ‘uncontroversial’ for the most part (no change is completely uncontroversial). For example, I think an official patch moving coinage to castle and banking to imperial would be welcomed by most. But a patch nerfing hun CA would fundamentally change the most popular (so by definition the most loved) strategies, which is obviously not in the interest of the majority. It would take an immature and unfair balance patch maker who thinks that they can just change the game simply so people have to play their preferred way.
5) Finally, keep in mind the global consequences of changes. What I mean is illustrated by buffing fire ships. Currently, fireships destroy galleys and war galleys in small numbers. If you buff them with the intention of making them a viable option on islands (in larger numbers), then you inherently will be making them way too powerful in small numbers. Fireships are meant as a counter to galleys, and they work circumstantially, but again, to fundamentally change the way a Viking islands war is played is simply not fair. (And personally, after playing intense arabia games, I like single-unit games on the water for a change).
And really guys, remember that if the game was really that bad, it wouldn't be so popular still after so many years...
Lastly, I never see any ‘all tech’ games played, especially in tournaments…perhaps that should be a thing…it would really change things up ;P