AOE-II DE What is the objective of balance changes?

[Static]

This is what, the third thread or fourth thread entirely dedicated to bemoaning the loss of the Inca vil rush? I wasn't paying as close attention to these forums way back when they got rid of the Korean tower build speed bonus, but were people as fiercely protective of that as they are of Incas now?

Firstly I wasn't around when that nerf happened but I do know that it was widely known that tower rushing was the only thing that Koreans could go for since all their other options were either weak or too expensive. Towers were also a lot more difficult to deal with at the time and Koreans had so many bonii for towers. Faster build speed, extra vill los, free upgrades, extra range. It was a situation where the Korean player was forced into this strategy which does not promote diversity and is the exact opposite of what this thread is about.

 

[Helichaos]

I don't know what the devs are trying to do, but I think that each civ should have a place in the game (have at least a few situations where they are viable), no civs should be too dominant across too many different settings (looking at you chinese), and you also don't want any civs that are completely dominant on any one specific setting (old chinese/persian nomad dominance).

However there's also something about civs only having one tacky option available, in my mind that's things like inca rush, busted arambai, original coustillier, korean towers, where a civ has one gimmicky strat available to them if they want to be competitive.

Now the funny thing about incas is I don't think they are as bad without the trush as people are making them out to be. Similar eco bonus to huns in the early game, and they have eagles available which are a sick unit, as well as slingers to counter longsword play counter, or they can play xbow with FU arb, plus kamayuk which is a decent UU.

I think this change will mean that with incas we will see a more variety of playstyle, rather than the same thing every game and if this ends up with them being slightly on the weaker side, they can receive a small eco buff.

 

[IYIyTh]

Inca's team and individual civ bonus should never allow them to get to the point in the game where a diverse tech tree can carry them.

Post-nerf their civ bonuses have absolutely no synergy, and their units are not so strong as to be a civilization that is just so much better it can thrive without comparable eco bonuses. A llama does not actually provide any meaningful benefit, and the housing bonus is nowhere near the savings realized by other civs earlier on in the realm of discounts and tangible eco bonus.

It is amusing people attempting to say that Inca's are a great civ post-nerf when even when they had a mechanism such as the Inca Trush to get them to the point in the game where their options that matter existed -- by their play rate among the general population and especially in meaningful tournaments they were rarely selected at all.

I would liken it to removing the Stable from Franks or AR from Britons/Ethiopians in Feudal Age and saying they're still a really good civ. Removing the synergy of its stone building cost reduction and villager health makes Inca a vanilla civ in the early game, comparable to virtually all other civs without any specialty in return.

This is not to say that just removing the Inca's option is necessarily bad (though I certainly think it's a lazy and cynical way to deal with poor sportsmanship and the inability for our player base to deal with alternative strategies,) just that you can't gut something from a civ and give them nothing in return.

It is certainly amusing that people in favor of removing the Inca Trush take this criticism as an either remove the trush or not, as opposed to the obvious problem with just gutting a major component of Inca's early-game play and providing no meaningful civ/team bonus buff to compensate.

Anyone selling that Inca's are "just fine," and a "good civ," when you have Franks who have better cav HP, cheaper castle, faster foragers, and free farm upgrades is either intentionally misleading you to sell the Inca Trush nerf or is delusional.

In comparison:

• Start the game with an Eagle Scout.
• Start with a free Llama. (your villagers aren't really obtaining a tangible bonus here, you aren't getting more food because you already have starting sheep you would be taking anyway.)
• Villagers benefit from Blacksmith infantry upgrades in Castle Age (You're likely expanding your eco w/ tc's anyway by this point)
• Houses support 10 population. (minor wood bonus)
• Buildings cost -15% stone. (Oh joy!)

Farms are built 100% faster. (worthless -- hurts your teamates when they try to time their farm upgrades)

 

[Johnny Walrus]

I agree. They completely nerfed some of the most entertaining strategies to watch. And some of the most unique to play.

I don’t like that “annoying” strategies are being nerfed or taken away. They’re fun! And let’s face it. It’s age. Whenever you lose it’s annoying

 

[Qualdrion]

I really dislike the argument that they are "fine" because of their nice tech tree - sure, on ladder games where both player randoms they will be fine, because against an average civ they often stand a chance, and at lower elos all civs can be fine anyways, so to me balance mostly really matters at the high level when both players are taking the game seriously. And in that setting, there isn't really any reason to pick incas because why would you pick a civ for a wide tech tree, when you can get a wide tech tree and better bonuses on top, or even a more specialized tree - it's not like you are going to make 8 different units in most games anyways.

Saracens also have a super wide tech tree (arguably much wider than incas, getting FU cav archers, monks, hussars and camels in exchange for eagles and the unique units, and saracens also have castle age knights), yet saracens are rarely picked in tournaments as well, just because in 1v1 your most powerful option typically matters more than the width of your strategies, and your eco typically matters even more than that, and both saracens and incas have in common that they lack a single very powerful option, and neither eco is that amazing.

To be a good civ you need to either have a military option that is really strong (i.e. you need military bonuses, incas used to have this with their villagers), or you need a strong eco. And despite their numerous eco bonuses, incas doesn't actually have a particularly good eco. So in the end, why would you pick them over other alternatives when they don't have any "power play" (other than castle age eagles, but both aztecs and mayans are better at this) nor a strong economy behind?

 

[Johnny Walrus]

to keep the game fresh.

You don’t keep the game fresh by making a Civ with the unique (and hilarious) Strat of vil fighting a generic Civ.

 

[Helichaos]

I guess I'm more concerned with the ladder than tournaments, and on the ladder I think the incas are fine. I'm sure I won't convince anyone so I'll wait for the next patch winrates to be released, if it shows that they aren't and they're all of a sudden way down, sure give them a boost.

I accept that in tournaments pros are going to select the absolute best civs which means most likely more than half of the civs won't get picked.

Look at lol which has 150+ champs, in the biggest tournaments a tiny minority of these are picked.

 

[The_Philos]

Is it because some people simply can't stand a civ having a unique playstyle? Is it because if you're an european white knight you're cool but if you're a brown south american mountain dweller you must be primitive and have a lower compeititve presence than glorious european superpowers?

Man, that race card out of nowhere. Very unexpected in this thread.
Trush was always disliked as a strat, even without Incas being very good at it. At least for a majority of players.
There is something that is just annoying about a tower going up behind every woodline and the only counterplay is to build your own towers. It's not really hard to defend, but just not fun to play, since it's tedious villager micro.
Besides, no one is stopping you from playing as you want. Inca trush will be still very viable, but maybe you will need units to protect your vills in the next patch.
The low winrate of Incas is probably due to many randoming Incas and going for the vill rush without any knowledge how to execute it properly. Removing that "go-to"-strategy actually will help that Civ.
I don't get how some get so emotional about a well deserved nerf. Nobody was defending the nerf to the 2-castle Arambai play, which was so much fun to play against. Or the super-fun Saracen Xbows, that deleted your buildings in seconds. It's about leveling the playing field. If Incas need a buff afterwards, so be it.

 

[Juanpa77]

Is it because some people simply can't stand a civ having a unique playstyle? Is it because if you're an european white knight you're cool but if you're a brown south american mountain dweller you must be primitive and have a lower compeititve presence than glorious european superpowers?

This post is big no sense 11

 

[Dr___Mundo]

Why is removing strategies that are unfair and unfun to play against so bad thing? Game is supposed to be FUN. So removing things that only make people cry and frustrated are the things that should be removed. Who cares if some civ has 56% winrate, I can live with dying to franks over and over again.
And then there's the point of steering people to play incas the way they are supposed to be played. The civ is fun and pretty decent in standard play, people are just too stupid to get over the memes and play them in any other way. To be honest its very slight nerf to them anyways (one wouldn't get infantry upgrades in feudal unless vill rushing) so there's really no downside other than for those 50 inca one tricks who are now furious because they know they're going to lose 300 points because they don't know any other strategies.
The strategy is not op, which is not the point. It just happens to only be fun for those people who are doing it. Get over it and stop complaining that you're not able to make people feel miserable with this strategy and move on to the next one,

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Why is removing strategies that are unfair and unfun to play against so bad thing? Game is supposed to be FUN. So removing things that only make people cry and frustrated are the things that should be removed.

Not the argument I would expect from someone with your username 11

 

[IYIyTh]

Except the strategies aren't unfair, and whether they are fun is a matter of opinion.

Cuman Steppe Lancer with 0 collision and the ability to path through walls was unfair.
Completely broken Kipchak/machine gun Kipchak were unfair.
Getting resources back after cancelling tech's quickly was unfair.

You contradict yourself in your own post, stating that the strategy is unfair, but then later write it's not OP.

Getting clapped by sending a third of their eco forward isn't unfair, it's an all-in play that utilizes civ advantages the same way Franks use Scouts or Britons or Ethiopians use Archers.


The fact of the matter is that AOE2 balance thus far has been geared towards spurning creativity and idealizing similar playstyles to all civs.

What is fun for you is not fun for another. The idea that you owe your opponent enjoyment or that whether they approve of how they defeat you or not should be of absolutely no consequence. I find balance discussion intending to remove parts of the game because a subset of the population is too foolish, or inexperienced, or incapable of comprehending there are other ways to play AOE2 other than a handful of Feudal rush/FC builds contemptible. I think even more hilarious is the idea that it's completely acceptable for someone to play Mayans or Franks really well, but ho-boy -- toss Inca's or Celts or Goths into the mix and the whaaambulances pour out in full effect.


Someone dominates you in Arabia certainly respecable -- someone claps you in Arena or another map they're just a clown.

It's just blatant hypocrisy.

AOE2's best feature is its replayability, and there is an unfortunate culture war within the AOE2 community where the only kind of match they want is if their opponent plays one of three strategies -- and probably bitch and find other excuses as to why they lost even when they do play those strategies.

You can only create so many civs that have only the same handful of options available them to you before it gets stale.

 

[Dr___Mundo]

Unfair and OP are not the same thing.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

The idea that you owe your opponent enjoyment or that whether they approve of how they defeat you or not should be of absolutely no consequence.

A game is meant to be fun to play so from the perspective of those in control of designing it a prevalence of strategies that do not feel fun or fair or engaging to play against is problematic. However scout rushing fits these criticisms just as much as the Inca vill rush so I agree with you that competitive players who support the removal of the Inca vill rush could be considered hypocritical if they treat scout rushing with respect.

 

[IYIyTh]

Unfair and OP are not the same thing.

And the Inca Trush was neither.

But everyone is fine with Mongol scouts heading to their base after a 16 vil Feudal up, upgraded Scouts after a 18 vil up from Magyars, Lith/Franks/Etc.

But good golly Miss Molly, someone decides to idle 1/3rd of their Eco by sending 8 vils forward requiring them to do damage or the game is likely already over in the same way making 8 scouts that don't do any damage does it's unfair!

 

[Dr___Mundo]

And the Inca Trush was neither.

But everyone is fine with Mongol scouts heading to their base after a 16 vil Feudal up, upgraded Scouts after a 18 vil up from Magyars, Lith/Franks/Etc.

But good golly Miss Molly, someone decides to idle 1/3rd of their Eco by sending vils forward it's unfair!

Nice analogy if we ignore that mongols and franks being nerfed before incas

 

[IYIyTh]

Nice analogy if we ignore that mongols and franks being nerfed before incas

Neither Mongols or Franks are meaningfully nerfed -- at all.

What has happened is akin to the hilarious inability for some players to understand how to defend a Scrush, balance was introduced to removing the Stable from Mongols, Magyars or Franks from Feudal Age and saying they're still well-rounded civs and have great options beyond Castle Age -- so their hilariously underwhelming, unsynergized civ/team bonuses are completely fine (the funny part is Franks still actually would have insane civ bonuses in this scenario -- the Inca's do not,) and they're a "great," civ.

"Well they still have Mandugai and CA -- and their knights are great in CA." Good luck getting there!

 

[Lord_patito]

But everyone is fine with Mongol scouts heading to their base after a 16 vil Feudal up, upgraded Scouts after a 18 vil up from Magyars, Lith/Franks/Etc

Something you can solve with a few quickwalls and then keep playing., allowing you to win because od your better eco in the long run.

Tell me again how you can have the upper hand agains an inca trush?

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Something you can solve with a few quickwalls and then keep playing., allowing you to win because od your better eco in the long run.

Tell me again how you can have the upper hand agains an inca trush?

Quickwalling is so tedious however that this doesn't solve the problem of scout rushing being not fun to play against.

 

[TheScribe]

This post is big no sense 11

And so is proposing to nerf incas for the third time without giving them good economic bonuses with eagle synergy, better slingers or real economic/team bonuses at least. Because their team bonus is detrimental more often than not.

 

[TheScribe]

Something you can solve with a few quickwalls and then keep playing., allowing you to win because od your better eco in the long run.

Tell me again how you can have the upper hand agains an inca trush?

There are various ways depending on where the trush hits and where is it going to hit next. Ultimately defending the trush is about game sense and adaptation and it varies from game to game as does the map and the trush itself. But in general you don't want to fight the trush reactively. Let the first couple towers be, use your remaining gold and woodlines, you can use archers or knights to end the trush. Knights are better at pressing the attack.

What you shouldn't do while defending the trush is send your own vills forward to fight under tower fire and then panic/get salty and ragequit. Which is what most people do and the reason the trush is effective.

Some people in this thread have claimed inca spammers hate the change because they will be forced to play other strats. And that is true when it comes to some people. But then again the people who like the nerf are mostly the same kind of people for other strats. So I think it's a hypocritical argument at best.

Aggresive tower is a beautiful playstyle. Some people say it's "easy and cheap" but microing vills, having them pop in and out of towers to cover for the rest, knowing how many vills to garrison to win the fight because blacksmith upgrades change the calculation, building and developing in two places at once does pose a challenge and like every playstyle, some people are better at it than others....

So let's for the sake of it compare incas to franks again:

• Villager blacksmith upgrades is the only unit oriented military bonus incas had. Franks get two out of the box and one of them benefits the whole team's knight line.
• Trush is a one trick playstyle. And so is going franks scrush into knights/fc knights if the map is wallable, frankish play is for the most part one dimensional and you have lots of bonus helping you achieve it.
• Incas get eagles, slingers and kamayuks. People try to use this as a selling point of them being good just by having variety. But it doesn't work like that. Franks get their paladin which is the single best raiding and combat unit in the whole game and then they get Elite TA to counter their counter when the enemy masses pikemen. Both of these units share attack upgrades in the blacksmith, TA doesn't even need ballistics or thumb ring they just hit, inca slingers on the other hand require full archer upgrades, ballistics and thumb ring to be competitive because they don't even have an elite version (Like the berber genitour does!, and don't get me started on condos they don't need it). The frankish player in constrat doesn't even need to tech switch to keep the pressure when being countered, they can just keep adding stuff that is further facilitated by the 25% cheaper castle bonus. They get cheaper castles than the inca who get stone discounts! And since the Inca won't be spamming towers no more, the aforementioned bonus becomes strictly better.
• Kamayuks are a highly situationally useful unit. They work well against cavalry but generally can't get to them fast enough to deal damage. They're great against rams as they can withstand arrow fire while destroying the ram from behind a wall. They're a great unit the problem is that if they mass paladins and you mass kamayuks they're the ones who are going to decide when and where the fight happens, and it will be on your base while they boom.

"What's this obession with Franks?" You might ask. Franks get considerably easier and more straightforward gameplay requiring zero skill, no tech switches and a very low amount of micro. Franks get consistently better results in ladder for 96.5% of the playerbase and they simply don't get nerfed the same way incas do.

 

[Spring_]

devs want the game to play out 1 specific way and progress through all 4 ages so they nerf anything that gives the 1400 level players trouble and move resources closer to the tc so that no one can ever not get walled. this plays out where wall/range defense is the superior meta. all archers civs with transitions always have the upper hand and now dont have to deal with different all in timings other civs could execute to have a fair shot at winning. this creates a wall / arena meta where even more players get to feel like they are competitive aswell. Now the open map players have to adapt and play only this style or else they lose 100% of games playing aggressive or open styles if they play to finish the game before 1.20mins because unless the skill gap is gigantic the defensive postured players always have more and cheaper tools to defend and its whether they play that style and defend properly.

 

[Rayne]

Dude, why is only the first letter of the last sentence capitalized?

 

[IYIyTh]

Tell me again how you can have the upper hand agains an inca trush?

You already have the upper hand because they have sent 1/3rd of their eco forward and are investing both wood and stone into towers. They probably also invested into a blacksmith and potentially 200 f 50 g into upgrades there alone -- potentially spending EVEN MORE on wheelbarrow that their eco won't benefit from for the cost/time invested. ( Nevermind that they're on stone, the slowest collecting of all res, for which is likely 3-4 vils at home mining for.)

Assuming you aren't a complete potato, have the capability for micro, and actually know how to fight a trush ( which includes knowing when not to fight a trush, know if it's necessary to counter-tower, have scouted appropriately and know where your res are, know when your opponent has overextended, know that you can counter and easily cause game ending idle time or villager kills, that you can fight at home if you choose) there is absolutely nothing about an Inca Trush that is more daunting than Frank Scouts. I would rather be Inca Trushed over Frank Scouts any day.

 

[Hunyadi_]

Dude, why is only the first letter of the last sentence capitalized?

Cuz there ain't no father to his style.