AOE-II DE Why and how the Cumans became more problematic after their buildings discount bonus?

[MAE_JO]

Hello eveyone!

Some of you may say there are more important civ to balance or discuss (which I did in many topics, check this one that have suggestions for 18 civs) : https://www.aoezone.net/threads/overhaul-balance-suggestions.184320/

But I wanted here to clarify why and how the Cumans became way impbalanced and problematic after the last buff that they got with the buildings discount (stables and ranges).

Before as Cumans you should make a decision with either booming or not but this is not the case anymore with the new cheaper military buildings. After this buff, you can now rush and at the same time boom or even defend with barrack and range and at the same time boom and this make them highly imbalanced with having 2nd TC in feudal with cheaper military buildings with also siege workshop in feudal. Being able to make a rush or defend easily and at the same time have a smooth boom behind this, is not a balanced thing at all and give the Cumans player a huge and unfair advantage over the oppnent.

Punishing Cumans boom is now way harder than ever before with their cheap military buildings while booming behind.

IMO Cumans should either lose this bonus discount completely on their stables and ranges or at least make the discount only on their stables but no more include the archery range. Not to mention they can do a build like Tati-rush way more easier with cheap ranges and even add rams making their play is completely imbalanced.

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

They are fine, previously Cumans sucked very hard and had one of the lowest winrates in 1v1s of all the civs, just leave them alone xD

 

[MAE_JO]

They are fine, previously Cumans sucked very hard and had one of the lowest winrates in 1v1s of all the civs, just leave them alone xD

You are right that they were so bad before and they needed a buff that time, but that buff unfortunately came in a wrong way. Giving discount on military buildings for a civ have 2nd TC and siege workshop in feudal is not a wise idea tbf. Now with having 2nd TC and at the same time cheaper military buildings makes playing against them is tough and not easy to deal with at all.

Before this buff all you have to do is going to the Cumans player base in feudal and check if he will play normal or drop a TC, if you saw him drop a TC then you know that you can punish it by pushing hard in feudal or just going direct FC But this is not the case anymore. Now you can see him drop stable or range or even both and at the same time have a 2nd TC.

 

[Plappertfan]

Instant 2TC, 1 stable and 1 range? From which buildings do you consider to produce? Which pop do you go up? Cumans got a hidden +100% wood bonus which I didn‘t notice yet?

Ofc you can play super aggressively but then you add the TC a few mins later - right? Therefore you sacrifice your castle age timing, don‘t you?

Last question: is there any civ which isn‘t OP?

Sorry, @AoEZone, but I simply couldn’t resist asking.

Before this buff all you have to do is going to the Cumans player base in feudal and check if he will play normal or drop a TC, if you saw him drop a TC then you know that you can punish it by pushing hard in feudal or just going direct FC But this is not the case anymore. Now you can see him drop stable or range or even both and at the same time have a 2nd TC.

 

[MAE_JO]

Instant 2TC, 1 stable and 1 range? From which buildings do you consider to produce? Which pop do you go up? Cumans got a hidden +100% wood bonus which I didn‘t notice yet?

Ofc you can play super aggressively but then you add the TC a few mins later - right? Therefore you sacrifice your castle age timing, don‘t you?

Last question: is there any civ which isn‘t OP?

Sorry, @AoEZone, but I simply couldn’t resist asking.

I will talk to you seriously of what I think about the current aoe2 balance. How many civs do we have? 42? 20 of them have problems. I put a link in this topic for 18 civs for either buff or nerfs and I forgot to add Berbers, Poles and Bohemians which these 3 also need nerfs.

About your questions for Cumans how I play them or how can you do what I listed for them it is not my business to teach you how to play.

 

[Plappertfan]

I will talk to you seriously of what I think about the current aoe2 balance. How many civs do we have? 42? 20 of them have problems. I put a link in this topic for 18 civs for either buff or nerfs and I forgot to add Berbers, Poles and Bohemians which these 3 also need nerfs.

About your questions for Cumans how I play them or how can you do what I listed for them it is not my business to teach you how to play.

These are bad news. I really wanted to learn your magic tricks. You probably want to go scouts/archers on an open map. In order to not die instantly you have to go up maybe pop21/22 the latest. But even that late you can go barracks/2ndtc/stable/range while having 0 farms and no mining camp. Sounds awesome. The only way you win against your opponent is if there is an elo deficit of sth like 400-500.


With stables/ranges 100w instead of the previous 75w they are just fine. They still have to afford 175w for the barracks.

 

[MAE_JO]

These are bad news. I really wanted to learn your magic tricks. You probably want to go scouts/archers on an open map. In order to not die instantly you have to go up maybe pop21/22 the latest. But even that late you can go barracks/2ndtc/stable/range while having 0 farms and no mining camp. Sounds awesome. The only way you win against your opponent is if there is an elo deficit of sth like 400-500.


With stables/ranges 100w instead of the previous 75w they are just fine. They still have to afford 175w for the barracks.

If you can read properly you wouldn't write this reply. I never said you can add directly 2nd TC, stable and range at the same time. Give me a single line in my topic that I said that, so this is one thing. 2nd thing I will repeat what I said, I said since they have cheap dirt military buildings they now have more options about their boom, so they can have a barrack and stable to scout rush and add TC OR have a barrack and range and defend their 2nd TC play also.

Whatever you are trying to say of them having cheap dirt 100w buildings or 75w like before, you can't deny how their boom now is way easier and smoother (and it shouldn't be) anf how they can defend their boom easily with the cheaper military buildings or even do a normal scout rush into boom.

The devs ruined the balance with all this weird stuff with DE. A civ have 2nd TC in feudal, another one have the eco techs age before with discount, cavalier in castle with 50% discount, with cheap dirt Paladin, relics make food, ignore armour mechanic, less bonus damage bonus, castles and TCs go up 100% faster, UTs give armies out of thin air, relics give attacks, monastery tech work on vills, machinegun camels, horses dodge guns ,siege and arrows and even melee projectiles, stone miners make gold, etc.

A single player and scenario editor player (like you) call these things cool things, but I call them problems. My friend, we are not the same.

 

[Plappertfan]

I‘m even worse than a scenario player. I play random civ and then blindly with each civ in 70+% of the cases on open maps m@a archer. Something in between 1-3 ranges. Maybe 30 % 1 range, 65 % 2 ranges, 5 % 3 ranges. Maybe mongols is the only civ where I play more often scouts than m@a.

 

[MAE_JO]

I‘m even worse than a scenario player. I play random civ and then blindly with each civ in 70+% of the cases on open maps m@a archer. Something in between 1-3 ranges. Maybe 30 % 1 range, 65 % 2 ranges, 5 % 3 ranges. Maybe mongols is the only civ where I play more often scouts than m@a.

Good for you, but as I told you..

 

[Plappertfan]

Then I hope that you will transfer your outstanding knowledge in the future also into your posts.

 

[MAE_JO]

Then I hope that you will transfer your outstanding knowledge in the future also into your posts.

I also hope that you will keep convinced in the future whatever the devs will add and will keep adding without fixing anything that "the game is perfectly balanced and all matchs are fair than it has been ever before".


A wise man once asked a people who once wanted to advise them: "Why do you worship a stone idol that neither harms nor benefits?" Then they answred: "Because we've seen our fathers and grandfathers do the same".

It is a fact that exists in every age and it is a big problem.

 

[archxeon]

What justifies the claims of imbalance? Hypothesis is all okay but you need to show numbers. What do the numbers tell?

 

[MAE_JO]

What justifies the claims of imbalance? Hypothesis is all okay but you need to show numbers. What do the numbers tell?

It is not about numbers more about how the bonus clearly doesn't fit a civ like Cumans that would break the balance.

For numbers I never considered them as a major reference and I will elaborate that for you.

Look for Sicilians as a big example, what is the winrate for Sicilians? Below 50%? Or even 49%? So by looking at these numbers people would tell you that they are fine or need a buff, but guess what? They are totally broken.

Last patch Sicilians got a nerf regardless their winrate whicg was below 50% ( and it was a great decision from the devs and well deserved considering how their less damage bonus is OP this is regardless their broken 100% build faster for castles and TCs, and even their 300 stone in the bank and even 1st crusade and also Hauberk which is like a Paladin but not a Paladin at the same time but way cheaper).

I suggested and mentioned when the devs first time introduced "lord of the west dlc" and I told people that the Sicilians are broken espcially their less damage bonus and people start mocking and laughing and think I am trolling and the devs after 1 year nerfed Sicilisns and they still need more nerfs.

Now you may ask "why are you telling me this"?

because my friend, numbers are not always facts, sometimes numbers are lying. Look at Chinese and Aztecs winrate also how they are not that much meanwhile both are S tier.

I also mentioned Burgundians since a year how they are OP with their eco techs age before with also a discount regardless having tons of bonuses in every aspect in the game. Their monasteries with relics that make food and gold are literally work like Fetoria, 50% discount on stables, OP UU, gunpowder do +25% more damage, Flemish militia, Cavalier in castle (regardless not having bloodlines).

When I suggested to nerf Burgundians (which also before a year almost when they got their eco discount) guess what people did?

They did exactly what you asking me "where is the numbers"? And they kept saying Burgundians are fine and their winrate is balanced and lately they got a nerf (which is not enough at all and they still OP and broken).


I am telling you all these examples to let you know numbers are not always a major reference and sometimes they lying. You should focus on the gameplay and observe how a certain bonus can break the system and the balance.

 

[Instinctz]

They did exactly what you asking me "where is the numbers"? And they kept saying Burgundians are fine and their winrate is balanced and lately they got a nerf (which is not enough at all and they still OP and broken).

Aww look at that, equalizer stretching the truth. Many believed Burgundians needed nerfs. What they didnr believe is they needed your nerf 4 different aspects of the civ. But hey. Facts have never been your fortay

 

[MAE_JO]

Aww look at that, equalizer stretching the truth. Many believed Burgundians needed nerfs. What they didnr believe is they needed your nerf 4 different aspects of the civ. But hey. Facts have never been your fortay

LOL. They got 2 nerfs and they are meh anyway so yeah they will need more.

Their stables bonus discount is broken regardless not having bloodlines, and their eco is OP and should be way less 40%. I think it should be 25% if not even less.

 

[Instinctz]

LOL. They got 2 nerfs and they are meh anyway so yeah they will need more

You got any stats that show them to still be overperforming?

You got any pro opinions that say they still need nerfs?

You got any tournaments showing them to still be nerf worthy?

I think it should be 25% if not even less

25% or less? You remember when they didn't have a discount the bonus went unused? Yeah.

This is why no one listens to you. You nerf with a hammer. Burgundians are sitting at 51.85% winrate. Hardly nerf worthy.
Meanwhile sicilians who you still want to nerf are sitting sub 45%

 

[MAE_JO]

You got any stats that show them to still be overperforming?

You got any pro opinions that say they still need nerfs?

You got any tournaments showing them to still be nerf worthy?



25% or less? You remember when they didn't have a discount the bonus went unused? Yeah.

This is why no one listens to you. You nerf with a hammer. Burgundians are sitting at 51.85% winrate. Hardly nerf worthy.
Meanwhile sicilians who you still want to nerf are sitting sub 45%

The major power spike with their eco is that they having their eco techs age before. So even if you make their 40% discount 25% it still enough and strong. With the 40% their eco is still OP anyway and winrates (as I mentioned before) not accurate thing to take on consideration always. Yeah you mentioned Sicilians and they are a big example of how the civ can be broken and at the same times their winrate is bad because yes I think Sicilians still broken and need more nerfs or a better suggestion just remove them completely from the game and give them a whole new design instead of their broken imbalanced design.


Anyways I'm not here to discuss the Brokengundians nor Sicilians, this topic for Cumans.

If you would like to discuss these civs-or more- check this link:

https://www.aoezone.net/threads/overhaul-balance-suggestions.184320/

for 18 civs changes and I forgot to add Poles, Bohemians and Berbers I may add them later.

 

[Instinctz]

The major power spike with their eco is that they having their eco techs age before

Bullshit. When it was just before the bonus went completely unused and the civ was dead useless.

So even if you make their 40% discount 25% it still enough and strong

Will it? I dont think it will. Just nerfing it from 50 to 40 has dropped their average winrate from 54+% to sub 52%.

and winrates (as I mentioned before) not accurate thing to take on consideration always

So winrates aren't accurate but your opinion is? Yeah.

Yeah you mentioned Sicilians and they are a big example of how the civ can be broken and at the same times their winrate is bad because yes I think Sicilians still broken and need more nerfs or a better suggestion just remove them completely from the game and give them a whole new design instead of their broken imbalanced design

Just because you think something is broken doesn't mean it is. You don't like the design and thats fine. But the civ still has to function. So if you want **** your way redesign it in a way that works instead of just nerfing everything you don't like and leaving a civ with nothing.

Anyways I'm not here to discuss the Brokengundians nor Sicilians, this topic for Cumans

No this topic is so you can continue to shove your shitty opinions down others throats despite being wrong 90% of the time. Even one of the most respected mods in the community called you willfully ignorant. Peace. I'm done with you.

 

[MAE_JO]

Bullshit. When it was just before the bonus went completely unused and the civ was dead useless.



Will it? I dont think it will. Just nerfing it from 50 to 40 has dropped their average winrate from 54+% to sub 52%.


So winrates aren't accurate but your opinion is? Yeah.



Just because you think something is broken doesn't mean it is. You don't like the design and thats fine. But the civ still has to function. So if you want **** your way redesign it in a way that works instead of just nerfing everything you don't like and leaving a civ with nothing.



No this topic is so you can continue to shove your shitty opinions down others throats despite being wrong 90% of the time. Even one of the most respected mods in the community called you willfully ignorant. Peace. I'm done with you.

LOL. People responses on the last patch changes was bad. All of them criticised the changes and most of them said that Burgundians nerfs, Gurjaras and Hindus are useless and many others also commented on other changes, I am not alone.

As long as the devs take years to balance civs there will be always a problems in the balance and there will unfair advantages in the matchs and even in tournaments will make unfair winnings considering of how many imbalanced civs we have now. AOE2 Tournaments winners will not be decided about skills anymore but about who have the bigger number of the broken civs in his draft . We have now 42 civs and God knows what will they add later and keep the old problems as they are.

From 42, there is literally 20 civs need changes between nerfs, buffs or a whole redesign.

 

[Instinctz]

From 42, there is literally 20 civs need changes between nerfs, buffs or a whole redesign

And you have legit sources to back this opinion up? And hordes of people who agree? Because your track record says otherwise.

 

[MAE_JO]

And you have legit sources to back this opinion up? And hordes of people who agree? Because your track record says otherwise.

Yes I have

Check: https://www.aoezone.net/threads/overhaul-balance-suggestions.184320/

 

[Instinctz]

Yes I have

What you have is a small number of people who agree with SOME of yout suggestions. Not even close to a horde. Not even close to 1% of thr playerbase even.

Honesty doesn't appear to be your strong suit. Literally the person who agrees with you most says he likes 40% of your ideas.

That is NO WHERE CLOSE to legit sources and hordes of playerbase approval. But good try.

 

[MAE_JO]

What you have is a small number of people who agree with SOME of yout suggestions. Not even close to a horde. Not even close to 1% of thr playerbase even.

Honesty doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

And what wants me to do? Say what 99% of the community say that the game is perfectly balanced and all civs have fair matchs between them and all they care about is playing the game with no thinking of bring a fair matchs? No, the game is not balanced at all and more than 15 civs need nerfs and changes.

 

[Instinctz]

And what wants me to do?

Provide legitimate sources and reasoning why things need change. Backed up with stats and proof that the playerbase views stuff as problematic.

And instead of just nerfing civs bonuses that you don't like the design into the ground, leaving the civ in a disastrous state, Provide why you don't like the design, and what would be a better design, complete with appropriate changes to leave the civ balanced.

Let's take sicilians for an example. They currently sit at less rhen 45% winrate and you would subject thwm to 3 different nerfs. But you never propose counter buffs to make them balanced.

And what wants me to do?

Stop claiming **** that isn't true. And instead of acting as if stuff is fact ( you know, you're 20 out of 42 bullshit claim, or that you have support in your stance), you could stick to actual facts.

The devs balance for 45 to 55% with occasional changes if something is particularly problematic (like incan tower rushing). What they don't do is change stuff just because.

Basically what I'm saying is be ****ing reasonable and stop projecting your opinion as fact when it's literally provable otherwise.

No, the game is not balanced at all and more than 15 civs need nerfs and changes

Game is balanced more or less from 45 to 55% according to the devs themselves. So you're telling me 15 to 20 civs have > 55% winrate? Please provide that source.

 

[MAE_JO]

Provide legitimate sources and reasoning why things need change. Backed up with stats and proof that the playerbase views stuff as problematic.

And instead of just nerfing civs bonuses that you don't like the design into the ground, leaving the civ in a disastrous state, Provide why you don't like the design, and what would be a better design, complete with appropriate changes to leave the civ balanced.

Let's take sicilians for an example. They currently sit at less rhen 45% winrate and you would subject thwm to 3 different nerfs. But you never propose counter buffs to make them balanced.




Stop claiming **** that isn't true. And instead of acting as if stuff is fact ( you know, you're 20 out of 42 bullshit claim, or that you have support in your stance), you could stick to actual facts.

The devs balance for 45 to 55% with occasional changes if something is particularly problematic (like incan tower rushing). What they don't do is change stuff just because.

Basically what I'm saying is be ****ing reasonable and stop projecting your opinion as fact when it's literally provable otherwise.



Game is balanced more or less from 45 to 55% according to the devs themselves. So you're telling me 15 to 20 civs have > 55% winrate? Please provide that source.

I already put reasons and explanations in my suggestion why these things need a change and how did they effect on the game. If all you care about is numbers then sorry I can't help you.