Agree (sorry JRed) and I should also add that it works the other way, changing stuff in RM can have adverse effects on DM. So be careful with balance changes.any dm player who says that we should stop complaining about balance changes should keep quiet since dm and rm and way too different ... let rm players give ideas about what they want be changed and dont **** on other ppl posts for balance changes just because you don't think it affects you.
So much for letting each one voice their opinions in a civil manner.any player who has less than 2k rate in rm should not discuss any balance changes issues since he clearly doesnt understand the game enough to give a reasonable opinion.
any player who has less than 2k rate in rm should not discuss any balance changes issues since he clearly doesnt understand the game enough to give a reasonable opinion.
So much for letting each one voice their opinions in a civil manner.
These are bug fixes rather than balance changes. Still agree with you thoughSo the sub 2k player who suggested Kamayuks should get bonus damage vs elephants was wrong?
Torsion Engines to affect scorpions? It barely did before still kind of doesn't but better than before
These are bug fixes rather than balance changes. Still agree with you though
The thing is, Cysion himself said they made the units OP so players could use them, otherwise they would never be played. And having a discussion with high level players about the balance is a good thing because developers can see where are the problems and what to fix. So no, just adapting to the game would not be ok. Most of us are adults and we can have a nice discussion I don't see any problem with that.
Opinions of expert players are the best and fastest way to get a balanced game.
Very true. We have Cysion in charge, who is a great guy and smart but he's I believe 16xx (like me).Balance discussions are a part of every online game. I think it is trickier in this case because the publisher and devs abandoned the game so there isn't really a higher power to make the changes.
Definitely fair. Being ranged and fast, mass Elite Mamelukes still wreck eles just with their regular bonus vs cavalry if you micro at all.Mamelukes however did not get an elephant buff though. Probably fair.
I didn't say it would be. Don't put words in my mouth.So no, just adapting to the game would not be ok
This is exactly the mindset I think most people should have when it comes to most things.Rather than 'nerfing' anything that is 'OP' I would just go in for subtle changes though. A -1 attack here or 10 extra gold cost there, that level of change.
Opinions of expert players are the best and fastest way to get a balanced game.
This kind of statement is often made in balance threads.
I agree and disagree at the same time.
It is true that what the experts say is correct for perfect gameplay, and would create an ideal game.
However, 90% of the users don't play perfect, and have completely different experiences.
So, should the game be tailored towards the best 10% of the players or to the broad mass? I can see benefits for both approaches.
Well, the perennial problem with balance debates is that if a certain unit or civ appears to be imbalanced, this imbalance might be inherent to the game or it might be the result of people lacking skill or not using the right strategies. If it's the latter, the solution isn't to change the game, it's to improve your skill level and game knowledge. So elite level play is where we should look for balance debates because if elite level players can't effectively counter a certain unit or civ over a long enough period of time then we can reasonably conclude that that unit or civ is OP.This kind of statement is often made in balance threads.
I agree and disagree at the same time.
It is true that what the experts say is correct for perfect gameplay, and would create an ideal game.
However, 90% of the users don't play perfect, and have completely different experiences.
So, should the game be tailored towards the best 10% of the players or to the broad mass? I can see benefits for both approaches.
These are all good points. I guess my issue is that, for me, the ideal balance discussion would be led by elite players, with lower-level players asking questions if they want things clarified. That way, we have a discussion that actually moves things forward where everyone has the opportunity to participate and learn about the game.Why even bother if people are complaining about balance changes too much?
And why bother if they come up with solutions that are too extrem for the game (for you)?
We will always have balance disscussions and it seems that everyone is agreeing that that is a good thing.
So if someone is suggesting a change that you don't agree with have a civilized discussion about it, tell them why you think its wrong and come up with a better solution together.
Or just leave them be, make fun about their suggestions in private with friends and forget about it. If it really is such a bad idea how they want to do it it won't be implemented in the game anyway.
These are all good points. I guess my issue is that, for me, the ideal balance discussion would be led by elite players, with lower-level players asking questions if they want things clarified. That way, we have a discussion that actually moves things forward where everyone has the opportunity to participate and learn about the game.
Instead, balance discussions always seem to devolve into self-appointed experts telling the world what the changes should be, then arguing with any elite players who enter the discussion. The upshot is that no elite players bother participating in public balance discussions any more, the discussions are therefore basically pointless, and all the changes get hashed out behind the scenes instead.
So when I criticise these discussions I'm not saying "don't have them", I'm saying "do them in a way that helps the game and isn't just a bunch of nobodies trying to prove how smart they are".