AOE-II DE Until when these things will remain without nerfs?! (Part 1)

[Potkeny]

THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE GAME.

The 3rd broken thing that the Sicilian have is the first crusade. Instead of 35 from 5 TCs, give them 15 from 3 TCs and make it cheaper.

So it should be removed or nerfed? You contradict yourself all the time, so its not easy to see it as more than rambling.

 

[Instinctz]

So it should be removed or nerfed

He's alreasy proven he doesn't care about balance. He just wants to nerf bat everything hr doesn't like. Balance be dammed, who cares about thst according to equalizer

 

[MAE_ME]

So it should be removed or nerfed? You contradict yourself all the time, so its not easy to see it as more than rambling.

I, as a player of course I will suggest only nerfs because the devs will never delete something completely that they did in the game, so if they want these weird things to still in game then at least they need to make them have less effects on the game system and make sense and be able to counter. I mean if I suggest to delete it everyone will just start to mocking more, I suggested nerfs and all people think I am trolling so what will happen then if I suggest to delete something completely from the game?!

 

[HongeyKong]

When will T90 make a LEL Balancing Ideas Edition?

 

[Potkeny]

When will T90 make a LEL Balancing Ideas Edition?

I want to see Dave comment on balance ideas, like he did on reddit/clan websites!

 

[Instinctz]

When will T90 make a LEL Balancing Ideas Edition?

He basically alreasy commented on this thread.

 

[NextLever]

Dude literally thinks every bonus that deviates from a generic civ is OP and broken 11

 

[Faultier321]

Everyone only attacking people that dont share the same opinion :D

why cant we have a creative discussion about balance Ideas? I think if you met another AoE nerd in a bar over a Beer and start talking about civ balance, no one would ever talk like this. Have some manners.

If in Forums like this people would have civilised, productive discussions, Devs might actually care to look into some Ideas.

Lets go through some reasonable stuff:

- War Wagons, Hussite Wagons and Organ Guns are fine the way they are in most games modes. They are only extremely strong in Arena clown strats and on Nomad. So how to nerf that without making them either useless or too expensive? I would recommend to nerf their production speed, maybe give mangonels some Bonus damage against the wagon units like MAE_ME suggested, this one seems reasonable.

- Britons are really strong, especially as TG Flank. However its is a civ that has barely been changed since AoC, and it has a lot of identity. Its one of the Civs to whichs total strength IMO the other civs should be balanced around. I wouldnt touch their extra range in any way. What I would suggest is nerfing their team Bonus down to 10% faster production, because TGs are all about archer numbers theese days and that Bonus is just a bit too strong.

- For Mayans, personally I found that longer lasting ressources Bonus always a bit weird. Together with the extra vil and the cheaper archers, Mayans is a super strong Civ. I would suggest to apply the longer lasting res Bonus only to their Stone&Gold Piles, but no more the natural food sources. It would be a nice nerf to their early game, without changing them a lot. But Mayans surely dont need extra free food compared to other Civs.

- Burgundians: People used to complain you couldnt afford the economy upgrades, so the Devs made them cheaper after what felt like 2 weeks? The Civ was certainly not fully figured out at that point. I would suggest to play around with the cost of the eco upgrades, instead of 50% less food you could go for like 15% less cost in total, or 25% less food, something like that. Give them a new UT instead of flemish revolution.

- Bohemians: I have not played this civ enough to make good suggestions. The Houfnice seems OP, but it looks like the Devs are starting to take care about this Civ with the recent nerfs. Though I am not sure what they need Japanese Halbediers for tbh.

- Lithuanians are fine, only very strong on Hybrid/Water Maps. Maybe make it 100 extra food instead of 150, but I am not even sure about that

When it comes to Sicilians, I am not reasonable. I explained earlier why I hate this Civilisation. I even made a topic about it few months ago. Remove them from the game.

 

[Faultier321]

- War Wagons, Hussite Wagons and Organ Guns are fine the way they are in most games modes. They are only extremely strong in Arena clown strats and on Nomad. So how to nerf that without making them either useless or too expensive? I would recommend to nerf their production speed, maybe give mangonels some Bonus damage against the wagon units like MAE_ME suggested, this one seems reasonable.

If I think about it, I would: Lower the production speed of Organ Guns, make War Wagons a bit more expensive (like they used to be before the Korean wood Bonus), and either give Mangonels more Bonus against Hussite Wagons, or dont classify them as siege so they can be converted without needing redemption, like the War Wagons.

 

[MAE_ME]

Everyone only attacking people that dont share the same opinion :D

why cant we have a creative discussion about balance Ideas? I think if you met another AoE nerd in a bar over a Beer and start talking about civ balance, no one would ever talk like this. Have some manners.

If in Forums like this people would have civilised, productive discussions, Devs might actually care to look into some Ideas.

Lets go through some reasonable stuff:

- War Wagons, Hussite Wagons and Organ Guns are fine the way they are in most games modes. They are only extremely strong in Arena clown strats and on Nomad. So how to nerf that without making them either useless or too expensive? I would recommend to nerf their production speed, maybe give mangonels some Bonus damage against the wagon units like MAE_ME suggested, this one seems reasonable.

- Britons are really strong, especially as TG Flank. However its is a civ that has barely been changed since AoC, and it has a lot of identity. Its one of the Civs to whichs total strength IMO the other civs should be balanced around. I wouldnt touch their extra range in any way. What I would suggest is nerfing their team Bonus down to 10% faster production, because TGs are all about archer numbers theese days and that Bonus is just a bit too strong.

- For Mayans, personally I found that longer lasting ressources Bonus always a bit weird. Together with the extra vil and the cheaper archers, Mayans is a super strong Civ. I would suggest to apply the longer lasting res Bonus only to their Stone&Gold Piles, but no more the natural food sources. It would be a nice nerf to their early game, without changing them a lot. But Mayans surely dont need extra free food compared to other Civs.

- Burgundians: People used to complain you couldnt afford the economy upgrades, so the Devs made them cheaper after what felt like 2 weeks? The Civ was certainly not fully figured out at that point. I would suggest to play around with the cost of the eco upgrades, instead of 50% less food you could go for like 15% less cost in total, or 25% less food, something like that. Give them a new UT instead of flemish revolution.

- Bohemians: I have not played this civ enough to make good suggestions. The Houfnice seems OP, but it looks like the Devs are starting to take care about this Civ with the recent nerfs. Though I am not sure what they need Japanese Halbediers for tbh.

- Lithuanians are fine, only very strong on Hybrid/Water Maps. Maybe make it 100 extra food instead of 150, but I am not even sure about that

When it comes to Sicilians, I am not reasonable. I explained earlier why I hate this Civilisation. I even made a topic about it few months ago. Remove them from the game.

And I agree with everything you said, especially deleting Sicilians from the game. Respect

 

[MAE_ME]

Everyone only attacking people that dont share the same opinion :D

why cant we have a creative discussion about balance Ideas? I think if you met another AoE nerd in a bar over a Beer and start talking about civ balance, no one would ever talk like this. Have some manners.

If in Forums like this people would have civilised, productive discussions, Devs might actually care to look into some Ideas.

Lets go through some reasonable stuff:

- War Wagons, Hussite Wagons and Organ Guns are fine the way they are in most games modes. They are only extremely strong in Arena clown strats and on Nomad. So how to nerf that without making them either useless or too expensive? I would recommend to nerf their production speed, maybe give mangonels some Bonus damage against the wagon units like MAE_ME suggested, this one seems reasonable.

- Britons are really strong, especially as TG Flank. However its is a civ that has barely been changed since AoC, and it has a lot of identity. Its one of the Civs to whichs total strength IMO the other civs should be balanced around. I wouldnt touch their extra range in any way. What I would suggest is nerfing their team Bonus down to 10% faster production, because TGs are all about archer numbers theese days and that Bonus is just a bit too strong.

- For Mayans, personally I found that longer lasting ressources Bonus always a bit weird. Together with the extra vil and the cheaper archers, Mayans is a super strong Civ. I would suggest to apply the longer lasting res Bonus only to their Stone&Gold Piles, but no more the natural food sources. It would be a nice nerf to their early game, without changing them a lot. But Mayans surely dont need extra free food compared to other Civs.

- Burgundians: People used to complain you couldnt afford the economy upgrades, so the Devs made them cheaper after what felt like 2 weeks? The Civ was certainly not fully figured out at that point. I would suggest to play around with the cost of the eco upgrades, instead of 50% less food you could go for like 15% less cost in total, or 25% less food, something like that. Give them a new UT instead of flemish revolution.

- Bohemians: I have not played this civ enough to make good suggestions. The Houfnice seems OP, but it looks like the Devs are starting to take care about this Civ with the recent nerfs. Though I am not sure what they need Japanese Halbediers for tbh.

- Lithuanians are fine, only very strong on Hybrid/Water Maps. Maybe make it 100 extra food instead of 150, but I am not even sure about that

When it comes to Sicilians, I am not reasonable. I explained earlier why I hate this Civilisation. I even made a topic about it few months ago. Remove them from the game.

About Bohemians I have to add one more thing about them; which it is THE FERRARI VILLS. Since their vills get effected by fervor monk upgrade that give them insane +15% more speed and with wheelbarrow and handcart it is just too much speed and workrate up to 35%, I think this is too much and may need to be removed somehow, they already have great eco with all mining free and cheap Unis and cheap monasteries and cheap blacksmith, or maybe keep fervor but remove the free stone mining shaft and gold mining shaft.

 

[Faultier321]

About Bohemians I have to add one more thing about them; which it is THE FERRARI VILLS. Since their vills get effected by fervor monk upgrade that give them insane +15% more speed and with wheelbarrow and handcart it is just too much speed and workrate up to 35%, I think this is too much and may need to be removed somehow, they already have great eco with all mining free and cheap Unis and cheap monasteries and cheap blacksmith, or maybe keep fervor but remove the free stone mining shaft and gold mining shaft.

Cheap moestarys has been removed in the last patch

PS: Maybe the First civilisation without access to Hand Cart?
-> still better mid game eco since Fervor is cheaper then HC, but slightly weaker eco in late game

 

[Faultier321]

Ah I forgot about Cumans:

Instead of cheap Stables and ranges, give them cheap Siege Workshops. This nerfs the knight spam after the 2 TC Boom a little, while encouraging feudal age ram play, which is almost never seen-

 

[Lokalo]

If I think about it, I would: Lower the production speed of Organ Guns, make War Wagons a bit more expensive (like they used to be before the Korean wood Bonus), and either give Mangonels more Bonus against Hussite Wagons, or dont classify them as siege so they can be converted without needing redemption, like the War Wagons.

They did increase wood cost of war wagons with Indians DLC. Is it enough? No idea

 

[MAE_ME]

Cheap moestarys has been removed in the last patch

Cheap moestarys has been removed in the last patch

PS: Maybe the First civilisation without access to Hand Cart?
-> still better mid game eco since Fervor is cheaper then HC, but slightly weaker eco in late game

Actually it is +5% more than having the HC and cheaper. This is why I suggested they either lose this bonus or lose the free mining shaft upgrades becasue it is too much but lets see.

 

[MAE_ME]

Ah I forgot about Cumans:

Instead of cheap Stables and ranges, give them cheap Siege Workshops. This nerfs the knight spam after the 2 TC Boom a little, while encouraging feudal age ram play, which is almost never seen-

Agree it will be better although I don't like the 2nd TC concept in feudal in general

 

[MAE_ME]

They did increase wood cost of war wagons with Indians DLC. Is it enough? No idea

View attachment 201300

They have wood bonus discount, this nerf won't change their Wagons rush. I don't mind keep them as they are but give scorpions and managonels a bonus damage vs them would be helpful especially in arena

 

[Faultier321]

Actually it is +5% more than having the HC and cheaper. This is why I suggested they either lose this bonus or lose the free mining shaft upgrades becasue it is too much but lets see.

Hand Cart Boosts Carry Capacity from 13 to 30 and is therefore by far the most powerfull farming upgrade, since farms are usually not beeing placed perfectly in lategame.

 

[Sextilidan]

If in Forums like this people would have civilised, productive discussions, Devs might actually care to look into some Ideas.

The last thing I would ever want devs to do is to follow civ balance advice from reddit or even this forum.
It's the same ****ing **** that ruined World of Warcraft class identity when the concept of DPS meters got adopted and everything had to balanced to perform on par.

People need to stop striving for perfect 50% win across all civ in a ****ing 1 v 1 Arabia. There's different maps, different game modes and different team sizes. Different civs excel at different areas. Just because pro players pick random civ in 1v1 shouldn't mean that one should expect a similar outcome regardless what civ they land on.

Same with all the stupid variations of "I want to mindlessly spam MAA/Samurai/Woad Raiders/Teutonic Knights and for it to be viable" reddit posts that emerge every other week. Infantry already fits a purpose in the game and it's perfectly fine. We don't need the game changed around the idea of making infantry a more popular choice.

Too much "I don't like the current state of X, therefore X must be changed" and not enough "Let me try to understand how/why X got to be in the state it is".

 

[Cuth]

touch me
feel me
then you will find
we are meant to be

 

[MAE_ME]

The last thing I would ever want devs to do is to follow civ balance advice from reddit or even this forum.
It's the same ****ing **** that ruined World of Warcraft class identity when the concept of DPS meters got adopted and everything had to balanced to perform on par.

People need to stop striving for perfect 50% win across all civ in a ****ing 1 v 1 Arabia. There's different maps, different game modes and different team sizes. Different civs excel at different areas. Just because pro players pick random civ in 1v1 shouldn't mean that one should expect a similar outcome regardless what civ they land on.

Same with all the stupid variations of "I want to mindlessly spam MAA/Samurai/Woad Raiders/Teutonic Knights and for it to be viable" reddit posts that emerge every other week. Infantry already fits a purpose in the game and it's perfectly fine. We don't need the game changed around the idea of making infantry a more popular choice.

Too much "I don't like the current state of X, therefore X must be changed" and not enough "Let me try to understand how/why X got to be in the state it is".

No one said that we want 50% win across all the civs, we are just asking to tweak/redesign/nerf some weird things and bonuses that break the general system in the game and doesn't make the gameplay fair at all.

I mean if you think a civ like Sicilians that break the counter system with it's wrong design and wrong bonuses, or Burgundians with their OP eco bonus that break the micro and eco management and make the match super unfair regardless their OP UU and Flemish Rev and chesp dirt Paladin and cavs in castle even with no bloodlines and with everything they have, then I am pretty sure that you have some mental issues for sure. This is regardless most of the DE civs with wha they have, and civs from 20 years ago with no changes, like the cheap dirt eagle line, Franks, Huns, Chinese, Britons, mesos..etc.

The wrong thing with these civs that it is not a fair play or equal chance anymore becasue it is a directly civ win with no fair play with the bonuses they have. You will always have a problem with Sicilians since they break the counter system, your eco will always be worse than Burgundians and Chinese and many other whatever you do. This is regardless how especially Sicilians and Burgundians and even Cumans became a cancer in this game. If it comes to me, I really suggest to devs to delete Burgundians and Sicilians from the game and bring a new DLC with other civs with better balanced and creative ideas and make it free for those who got LOTW DLC since this DLC is a cancer DLC. Most of DE civs need tweaks/nerfs/changes/redesign.

 

[GosBanyat]

Man, the dude that created this thread user name is just a derivation of "meme", just leave the troll alone

 

[Faultier321]

The last thing I would ever want devs to do is to follow civ balance advice from reddit or even this forum.
It's the same ****ing **** that ruined World of Warcraft class identity when the concept of DPS meters got adopted and everything had to balanced to perform on par.

People need to stop striving for perfect 50% win across all civ in a ****ing 1 v 1 Arabia. There's different maps, different game modes and different team sizes. Different civs excel at different areas. Just because pro players pick random civ in 1v1 shouldn't mean that one should expect a similar outcome regardless what civ they land on.

Same with all the stupid variations of "I want to mindlessly spam MAA/Samurai/Woad Raiders/Teutonic Knights and for it to be viable" reddit posts that emerge every other week. Infantry already fits a purpose in the game and it's perfectly fine. We don't need the game changed around the idea of making infantry a more popular choice.

Too much "I don't like the current state of X, therefore X must be changed" and not enough "Let me try to understand how/why X got to be in the state it is".

I understand, and I mostly agree.
Still, I think in any setting - especially the most popular ones, like Arabia, no matter if 1v1 or TG - there shouldnt be just 1 or 2 out of 42(?) civs that dominate all others. And in a TG, as flank doing what is viable nowadays - going 2 ranges archers - probably ethiopians, maybe chinese - are the only civs that even have a shot against the Britons/Mayans combo, but are still in disadvantage. Mainly due to the Britons faster production Bonus, which helps mayans with their cheaper archers even more.

Of course Civs shine in different settings, but it would be nice to see maybe around 8-10 instead 2-4 Civs beeing viable in that setting. You dont want the same 2-3 civs completely dominating every 1v1 arena either. This is achieved easier by nerfing the 2-3 top civs instead of buffing the 40 other civs. Slightly nerfing the Britons team Bonus is the easiest way to achieve that, without changing too much about the game.

I agree that you can see tons of stupid balance suggestions in reddit forums by some 1100s who just want their favourite civ/strat/unit to be the best strat and actually have no clue about the game, wanting niche Units like skorpions or longswords to be legit for example. AoEZone is the place where (mostly) people have a better rating aswell as better understanding of the game. If we dont make good balance suggestions, Reddit people might just win.

 

[Sextilidan]

I understand, and I mostly agree.
Still, I think in any setting - especially the most popular ones, like Arabia, no matter if 1v1 or TG - there shouldnt be just 1 or 2 out of 42(?) civs that dominate all others. And in a TG, as flank doing what is viable nowadays - going 2 ranges archers - probably ethiopians, maybe chinese - are the only civs that even have a shot against the Britons/Mayans combo, but are still in disadvantage. Mainly due to the Britons faster production Bonus, which helps mayans with their cheaper archers even more.

My only concern about this is that we are starting to think of design decisions that are catering towards a specific meta.
It would be implying that the only way to play 4v4 is 2 archer flank, 2 cav pocket. I am not saying it's not frustrating to play against the same cheap comps over and over again, but I feel like we should be looking at creative ways to decypher the puzzle instead of asking for stuff taken away from a civ. That combo is available for our team to use as well, I don't think the decision to use a sub-optimal pairing of civ bonuses warrants a nerf.

 

[Faultier321]

I actually like the way you think - breaking the meta is much cooler and more fun then playing the Meta. Its nice if you can play a fwd as flank or drop ranges in feudal as pkt on enemy pkt. it can work out great. But most of the times it doesnt work - it is called 'most effective strategy' for a reason. We cant act like its 2003 and the game is zero degree figured out yet.

I am a very conservative guy when it comes to balance changes, believe it or not. I hated the nerf to Celt Militia just because of Hoang. Especially when it comes to the original AoC civs - nowadays even FE and African Kindoms Civs, of which some were initially super weak (f.e. Magyars used to requires Blacksmith for for free forging, Organ Gun was weak and Porto didnt have faster researching techs), others really strong (Orginal Malians/Ethiopians, broken Camel archers, AoC Huns). I think that >95% of the players today in retrospect agree to most of the changes that have been made since then. There is nothing wrong in balancing out the new Civs (I hope you agree that f.e. gujaras are pretty broken and need some nerf).

Touching the older Civs that seemed relatively fine is a different thing. I am not some noob who plays the game since half a year and rants "BRitONs aRe OP" and wants to take away their extra range. Its a huge part of the civs identity. On the other Hand, nerfing their team Bonus just a little doesnt change the Civs identity in any way, but might lead to their win rate, and along with that pick rate, drop a little bit. Specifically in the settings were excactly that Bonus is very strong.

The changes I suggested for the few classic civs in there are not big changes, but small ones that IMO would have a positive impact on overall winrates, while not really beeing noticeable while playing (Briton ranges, mayans longer lasting res not applying to food sources).

Other Civs like Burgundians and Cumans are clearly not yet in their final stage - those are civs that are beeing changed every few months anyways.

You can feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions, but I dont think it makes sense to disagree with balance changes in general. Cheers.