| I don't know how, but somehow I made it that my Cow started patrolling... Posted: 17 Dec 2021 12:50 AM PST |
| An attempt to analyse the current civ-balance (no balance-suggestions, don't worry) Posted: 17 Dec 2021 03:22 AM PST  | With KotD as a huge testing field to see how Civs play out on highest level 1-v-1-Arabia, I felt like doing a bit of an overview of the game balance (regarding 1-v-1-Arabia). I won't make many suggestions for concrete changes, but I just want to draw a bit of a picture of the situation and where there might be things which could be adressed. Explanation of the picture below: - Right side is strong, left side is week.
- Upper side means that the Civ have some issues not with their general strength but just because they perform very differently dependent on the opponent civ.
- Lower side means that the Civ is not necessarily unbalanced overall, but has some aspect(s) to it which might feel too strong or kinda unfair in certain situations or create bad matches. This is more subjective than the rest of the plot.
https://preview.redd.it/znxi6hl073681.png?width=1133&format=png&auto=webp&s=92aea7aa659ad6ebc6ca5f4d59d4ee17c96943c2 Some general notes about balancing: - I think the game is in a very good state of balance. Almost all civs can beat almost all civs. Still I think that minor optimizations can be done in many spots.
- It is up to anyone's opinion for what goal the game should be balanced and how a perfect balance would look like. Some people agree with Civs being strong in specific maps, like closed maps or water maps, and therefore worse on Arabia. Some might put a higher importance to performance in team-games. I do like the idea of having a perfectly balanced 1-v-1-Arabia as the core of the game as other maps will necessarily be unbalanced anyway.
- The same applies to game mechanics in itself. Balance is always a matter of game design: Do we like Civs to have extreme power-spikes or not? Do we like units that can't be countered or not? Is it needed that a Civ has to adapt or is it fine if a Civ simply can go for the same thing every time? Do we like extreme deviations from the normal gameplay (such as Cumans) or not?
- On the same page is the question of the general game balance: Right now, Civs that lack bonuses early on and permanent eco bonuses are rather bad on Arabia. Also Civs who struggle against Archers or have no good range options are rather bad. If the game could be tweaked to make early bonuses, eco bonuses and range options a slight bit less important, that would affect the civ-balance a lot as well. A big point here would be how to counter CA; imo, many unbalanced civ-matchups are a result of CA being pretty difficult to counter.
So, please keep in mind that these things are naturally subjective and also quite complex. Surely, I will be just plainly wrong with some of my claims and many will be somewhat based on my personal preference too. Different opinions are always welcome. Analysis https://preview.redd.it/3kgq6gv673681.png?width=1133&format=png&auto=webp&s=1954475ebb1b5b3e6c5f81567c8afea51accddbe - The strongest civs: Mayans, Aztecs and Chinese are still seen as the clear S-Tier-Civs on Arabia. While I think that this is somewhat due to them being very well known and the players being very experienced with them, it is hard to argue with that when basically all players agree on it.
- Chinese might be kinda nerfed with the new 2-Militia-Drush-meta and Aztecs don't feel that crazy for me in late game and have at least a few problematic matchups, but still those three have so much going for them. The pure amount of bonuses that Chinese and Mayans have is really weird. It seems really hard though to fix them without making them less interesting and less functional. An obvious thing might be to nerf Eagles a bit (and give Incas some eco in return).
- Vikings are basically the clear number four. Their change more towards infantry makes them less problematic, I feel like. Still their Eco is so mega-bonkers that I personally always wonder myself how you even can lose with them if I play them myself.
- The situational broken civs:
- I will die on the hill that it is absolutely nuts to give Britons their extra range for free. Not only that this is insanely strong, it's also their unique tech at the same time. It makes them boring and it creates boring games which are very centered around this power spike.
- For Franks, they can get a bit too easily into Knights and a good eco which is in my opinion a lesser problem though because it makes them very predictable; the bigger issue are their cheap Castles. In some situations that combination is just insanely good; at the same time Franks are quite matchup reliant; they do struggle quite a bit against CA, Camels and Leitis, but also smash a lot of weaker Civs quite easily.
- Lithuanians are the more versatile variation of them with the Relic-Knights as a super-power-option; I would love to keep them how they are but in comparison to, let's say Magyars or Persians, there can be made an argument for a slight nerf.
- Burgundians do have the very controversial Revolution that many think of as broken and dumb at the same time; I don't have a very strong opinion about that, but I would add that their eco can be a bit too strong when they get a good map.
- Huns and Mongols can be called here as well. Cav Archers are arguably the unit which is the hardest to counter; with Mangudai also shredding Siege, they can be unstoppable for many Civs. Huns CA is not as broken in itself, but instead quite easy to get to.
- Sicilians need a shoutout here too, basically for their whole design. Everything they have feels kinda broken, especially their uncounterable Knights. I have some symphathy though for them having crazy bonuses and still not being op overall, arguably that's pretty good design. They are quite matchup-reliant though, there are quite some Civs which basically have no chance against them, but also some which have a very clear edge by just playing standard into their power-options.
- The well balanced Civs: I think Japanese, Incas, Malians, Tatars, Berbers and Khmer have a great balance.
- Tatars are so smooth with all their bonuses helping each other that there could be made the case for a minor nerf, but especially if you look only on the top 15 civs, they feel in a perfect spot.
- For Berbers and Khmer, you could argue that they have some matchups which are a little too good for them. Berbers will always have a disadvantage in Feudal Age though and usually it's more about other civ's weaknesses which Berbers can exploit. Khmer Scorps can feel insane sometimes and Knight-Scorp against Civs without good Cavalry is really good, but KotD also showed that it's not really broken, Scorps are difficult to control and lack mobility, so it is fine.
- Malians and Incas are designed to have good options in all situations but no ultra strong options which puts them into this spot by design. They had decent pick priority and decent win-rates in KotD.
- The same can be said about Japanese; with them being quite great in melee-matchups and pretty generic in ranged-matchups. I would like to give them something to help their Skirms, because they often need to play into them. That raises the question of course if their balance is actually that good, but I simply would prefer to aim for a balance which is close to Tatars (and old Malians) and then Japanese are being a little worse than them.
- The slightly matchup-reliant Civs:
- Vietnamese are awesome against Archer-Civs but lackluster against Cav.
- Celts will usually be adaptive and thrive on their eco, but have some things they just die to (Mangudai, Cataphracts, Sicilian Knights).
- Indians are probably even close to S-Tier as long as they don't need to fight Eagles, they were impressive throughout KotD.
- Byzantines have some situations, where they can wreck with Cataphracts or mass Camels or are at least very good with mass Skirms, but they can struggle against strong ecos or heavy gold compositions; other than that they're also in a great spot.
- Ethiopians will be great against slow Civs that lack good Skirms, but can die to good Anti-Archer-Civs a bit too hard.
- The can't-quite-get-to-their-options-Civs:
- With Slavs and Poles, the two big farming-powerhouses do struggle in the early game which makes them a slight bit worse than the average Civ. Poles have the most insane power-spike in late Castle Age while Slavs shine from that spot onwards (but do struggle against Cav Archers).
- Similar are Magyars and Italians who have great late-game-options but just not enough going for them early on to get there against good civs. I think all of these Civs can be very fun, but they just struggle a tiny bit too much.
- Cumans fall into a similar spot with them being more map-reliant than matchup-reliant; there can be games that are basically an auto-win for them, but if they can't apply their Feudal boom, they're lackluster; can struggle as well against Civs with very good early Castle Age.
- Saracens will always have a winning condition in their Castle-Age-powerspike by using the market; but they will struggle to have an early game which actually leads them there and afterwards they have a bad economy and therefore just generic military options (with Siege Ram, Champions, Mamelukes and Zealotry being very difficult to afford).
- Special shoutout to the Bulgarians who can be counted into all of the three beforementioned categories. They can be seen as well balanced, but also lack a bit of eco to get towards Konniks or their unique-techs and also struggle a bit against ranged Civs while being great against most melee civs.
- The very matchup-reliant Civs:
- Teutons being the prime example of a Civ which is potentially quite good, but is heavily dependent on the opponent civ. They are just sad against Cav Archers while they can just smack many of the melee-based civs.
- Goths are similar, dying to all sorts of infantry-killers such as Teutonic Knights, Jaguars, Shotels, Conqs, Bulgarians, Samurai, Hand Cannoneers, Slingers and, super hard, to Cataphracts. Other than that, they can run rampage against many compositions, having some of the strongest Archer- and Knight-counters. It will be very difficult to bring them into a good spot.
- Turks are a bit more lackluster on average with their bad eco and lack of counter-units, and further they die heavily to strong Camel-civs.
- Burmese are the worst of these Civs because their power-options are also not too impressive, while they just die to Cav Archers, Britons and other good ranged civs, which covers just many, many civs. The devs tried to solve this but relying on unique techs is simply not going to work out.
- The lackluster civs: These Civs were not even played once during KotD, which is true only for them and the Turks.
- Koreans are probably the best in this category, because they do have a decent answer to the meta, having good Skirms and being able to kill some of the stronger Civs; but they usually die to Knight-Civs with good eco.
- Bohemians are not really figured out, but are simply ultra-slow, having absolutely no mobile options; they do have counters to everything and a strong late game, but almost all civs will have an edge early on.
- Similar are Portuguese; they can be good as long as you spam gold-units, but how to get there? They don't have a good opening, can be countered by Skirms in Feudal Age, should be later to Castle Age every time and then have a shitty eco behind that.
- Malay can have minor powerspikes and a good economy, but lack early strength and late options which basically applies to no other Civ.
- Persians don't have major issues, but also almost no advantages going for them.
- Similar are Spanish; they have the Conqs and that's it. That's just not enough to compete with good Civs consistently. A second shoutout to Burmese here who belong in two categories.
Final thought: Incremental changes With this post probably raising the question "how much do you want to change that game, wtf??", I want to line out a thought I am having about game balance in general: I think that people think too much in terms of big, remarkable, game-changing modifications. What could be done instead is to tweak things just a little bit towards the right direction. You don't need to change balance necessarily, you can also just smooth it out a little bit. In my opinion, you should basically permanently try to nerf everything that's undeniably meta and buff everything that's bad, but not in a way to make bad things good and make good things bad, but just to bring them a little bit closer to each other. We had some of these incremental changes since DE which was for example the very slight change in Cav Archer's frame delay, the +1 melee armor for Longswords, the increase of gunpowder projectile speed or the recent changes to infantry UUs. I think none of these things had a negative impact on the game. You don't even need to know these changes, they just bring things a bit closer, making decision making harder and strategy more diverse. I think, that's definitely the way to go to optimize the game even further. Looking forward to hear your thoughts.
[link] [comments] | |
| Accidentally hit some button and now task bar and window shape appears in game. Ideas how to fix that? Posted: 17 Dec 2021 08:06 AM PST |
| Has anyone else been getting this bug recently? Vils cluster on the centre of a building foundation and then go idle instead of building it, even when there's nothing anywhere near. Posted: 17 Dec 2021 07:08 AM PST |
| Why aren't Team game championships more popular? Posted: 17 Dec 2021 05:16 AM PST I often hear only about 1v1 championships like KOTD but I believe for many low ELO casuals like me, team games are more epic in scale and thus far more enjoyable to watch compared to 1v1. Why is this so? submitted by /u/NativeEuropeas [link] [comments] |
| historian discusses siege tactics (yes that means trebuchets) Posted: 17 Dec 2021 10:45 AM PST |
| Leave buster needs to fixed. Posted: 17 Dec 2021 11:16 AM PST I play exclusively 3s and 4s. if a teammate drops in dark age, we are still forced to play a lost game. I've left right away after saying gg to be hit with a 10 and now a 30 minute ban? This is lame. submitted by /u/Team-CCP [link] [comments] |
| Grey tiles under wood line mod? Posted: 17 Dec 2021 06:38 AM PST |
| Looking for mod for 2 people to play simultaneously on the same civ Posted: 17 Dec 2021 09:31 AM PST Title. Here is a video of T90 and MbL playing together and giving contradicting orders to a monk. What is that mod on HD and does it exist on DE? submitted by /u/Gal2 [link] [comments] |
| Well after fluctuating between 900 and 1000 ELO… Posted: 17 Dec 2021 09:27 AM PST I have decided I'm just gonna start smurfing. See you in the 700's 🤘 This isn't so that I "win". Its just so that I can meme strat a bit and not be such a try hard. I get crushed as a try hard so I'm just gonna be a try little and enjoy myself more. submitted by /u/TheRealPlayerName [link] [comments] |
| Map ban system broken? Posted: 17 Dec 2021 03:29 AM PST |
| Why do you think Cuman is missing heavy camels from a balance perspective? Posted: 16 Dec 2021 08:47 PM PST To clarify, I'm not a cuman main or pro. It is just that it is quite intriguing to me that out of the 12 Civs that have access to camels, only cuman lacks heavy camel upgrade. Of course, this is not game breaking nor unique. Saracens lack cavalier upgrade, Spanish and Bulgarian is missing even xbow upgrade and Turks completely miss out on their skirms and pike upgrade. While I can understand the reasoning behind the examples above. I just curious why others think about the missing heavy upgrade for cuman since camels are essentially a counter unit. Cuman late game options are paladin, full halbs, siege Rams and SO. My initial take is maybe dev don't want a civ paladin and heavy camel, but persian and byz have both. (Persian in concept is also a boomy civ, with full halb, siege ram, no SO but with bbc) Maybe during DE release, steppe lancers are too strong. So removing heavy camels is the way to go. What do you guys think? submitted by /u/revzpsy [link] [comments] |
| Unique Building Idea Posted: 16 Dec 2021 06:36 PM PST I had a dream last night. There was this unique building, which is a monk tower. It does not attack and it converts any passing enemy unit. Conversion success is 100%, and regains faith 100% faster. What do you think? submitted by /u/hussar269c [link] [comments] |
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/ywffax7hm4681.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/jbs788rzb4681.png){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment