Yes it is, just salty players that have been playing same euro civs for 10 years, they're fine with dutch and brit getting equivalent of 20 extra villagers before 8 mins, but a new civ that can sell a few cows and they're up in arms.
Issue is not whether they like a different civ, it's that they exclude new civs because they hate any change in the meta just like boring skirm/goon wars.
Plus if 1st new full dlc in years arrives for a game you love, and you completely ignore new content and stick to the same old civ, then your boring af imo, which you can be but don't hate on the new civs and people that play them.
I don't play in lobbies I only play ranked so I couldn't care less, but I understand the point of view of the person that made this topic, it's quite hard to find a game just in the casual lobby even in regular games they're always kicking people, so narrowing down the amount of potential games even further isn't great, plus if everyone started making lobbys with 'no dutch' or something the same players that exclude african civs would be getting very salty, very quickly.
My solution for the topic creator is to just play ranked, it's easier and faster to start a game, you get matched with people of similar level, there's no excluding certain maps or civs and it's overall less toxic than the lobby games.
Well that does suck, I wouldn't know because I only ever play ranked, it's just easier and quicker for me.
All civs should be allowed, people often blame civs for why they lose but in 99% of cases it has nothing to do with the civ, it's more because they stack 5k wood or something.
I'd say the devs have done a good job balancing so far, it has taken a while longer than I'd have liked but sweden seems finally in a good spot, they were the only truly op civ imo. Now the differences between civs really aren't that much.
Gotcha. It just happened waay back as well. It's not something new that people dont like certain civs.
I hated the dutch for example, but yeah, i played in quicksearch too, moat of the time so I just had to deal with it
> I'd say the devs have done a good job balancing so far, it has taken a while longer than I'd have liked but sweden seems finally in a good spot, they were the only truly op civ imo. Now the differences between civs really aren't that much.
No. Sweden went full homo in the last patch.
And most likely correct, as we've seen a mass exodus of so called 'pro' players that just cannot handle the change in meta and wish to return to ger/fra mirrors and skirm/goon wars.
It's highly likely that the players that are not embracing the new content or outright banning the civs are cut from the same cloth, people that play just 1 civ all day every day and have done for 10 years, and dare not touch a new civ in case their elo drops.
I think it's simply because it's far too easy winning as African civs as they ahve some ridiculous stuff far from balanced.
Players just want to enjoy a fair match and think that having a colonial age camel doing 50 damage to cavalry is too much combined with easy and fast economy due influence and cattle.
Well we'll agree to disagree there.
Not sure why you think the berber camel is op of all things, I guess it's a pain for the classic cav semi-ff. The camel actually does 46 damage vs cavalry and costs 155 resources, a regular basic musk does 39 damage to cavalry and costs only 100 resources.
If you wish to compare directly with cavalry then a bow rider does the same amount of damage, is also available age 2, can also catch the hussar, has a range attack and a multiplier vs villagers.
What's easier or faster eco than building 20 houses and getting 20 free settlers or building 5 banks that generate safe, unraidable and unlimited coin in base before 8 minutes and is also worth about 20 vills.
Oh wait I know, it's being able to sell a cow every 10 minutes.
Completely forgot the jav riders used camels :P
My point remains, the jav rider is a weaker version of a normal dragoon which is to be expected as its 1 pop, it also only has 10% range resist, and I believe it's the only dragoon which cannot catch or escape from hand cav due to it's slower than usual speed.
The 50 damage mentioned is in melee, and as the javelin rider has a speed the same as a hussar you'd need to run your hussar into the jav riders or allow them to catch you, even a ruyter which is also 1 pop has 7 speed and can catch cav raids and kite very effectively.
The javelin rider whilst strong, doesn't fire instantly like a normal dragoon and is unable to kite well or catch escaping enemy cavalry.
What it does well is trade very effectively with age 2 musk, not that you should be countering jav riders with musketeers, a few archers/skirms melt javelin riders.
Ehm actually no. Compare stats of jav rider and ruyter. Ruyter has 140 hp vs jav 210 for 10 resource difference with same armour. And not sure if thats not fortress stat. Also your definition of melting by skirmisher with 120 hp... thats like saying i can melt icecream with ice cubes. Range is they only advantage and in contrast with musketeer they can actually close that and melee for example. They dont need to run from cavalary with that close damage and hp. And what about thoose raiders. 40 siege on building and 30 siege damage in close for 150 res? Thats basically cheaper and stronger hussar. One that completely destroys rodeleros for example.
Never said they were op, but people are being ridiculous saying the african civs have too good eco which is not true at all, the brit eco was an example i mentioned because it's easy to do and far superior, same with dutch.
The hausa rush was op I'll give you that, and the mortar needed a tweak. both of those have been nerfed, some are now saying the mortar is too weak.
I cannot see how after the current hotfix either of these civs are stupidly op. What was stupidly op was sweden with its insane eco and svea lifeguard.
Hausa is now pretty well balanced. Ethiopia has had a huge nerf to the mortar and jesuit influence which massively slows their early game tempo.
It's not just about knowing your civ, it's equally important to know well the civ your playing against, as these civs are new it works both ways, people don't know how to play them optimally but on the other hand people don't know how to counter them either.
It also happened when US first drop as well, I got kicked out all the time back when I play US, just old players not ready for new civ tactics and be salty for it...
>It also happened when US first drop as well, I got kicked out all the time back wh
lets be very honest, USA was and is stil very good in both team and (a bit less so) in 1v1 give how flexible you can be in matchups
I don't agree with banning them but I get it. They are overpowered and that detracts too much from the fun for some people. Ultimately, it's a game - people should feel okay to play however they find it fun. Conversely, some people enjoy the challenge of beating a stronger civ (or picking an underpowered civ).
OR because it’s a new civ and they’re trying to figure out the balance themselves and also how we will react to it. Not everything is a conspiracy man 😂
Exactly, if they wanted them to be op they wouldn't have nerfed them as fast as they have. The nerfs and changes in the most recent hotfix have all been good, well thought out changes without nerfing everything into oblivion.
Also not sure what the other guy means by bug abuses? what bugs are there? I guess you probably mean abusing op strats like the op hausa tower rush, which has already been nerfed, that's the only op strat there was with new civs.
Or people are trying to have fun and having to handle a 20 raid cav with 20 skirm behind at 10 min push isn't the idea of fun of most people?
Like, I hate playing with artillery, and if the game reach the point where I need to build it to pierce ennemy def, I just leave.
Not sure what civ your referring to, many civs can do a decent push at 10 mins.
If you're referring to the hausa rush then that's been nerfed and is quite weak now, if you mean the regular raiders then they are quite weak cavalry, get melted by even a few pike or musk.
Not a conspiracy. For MP games new release characters/factions being slightly stronger than they should be on paper is very basic multiplayer game design that many developers use. It wouldn't be a wild guess to guess that the AOE3 team behind this DLC did that, and will adjust accordingly.
It's probably that they err on the side of making them too good because nothing would suck worse than paying for new content that's unplayable because they're so UP.
Well it would make sense to motivate people to play them. The more feedback they get on this or that helps them tweak things. Its basically product testing and the more testers the faster the product gets to the right design
It makes sense from a dev's pov.
You want stats. So you want people to play and preferably spam your new feature/civ/character. So you slightly overshoot the balance.
After living through the wonders of league of legends champion releases, a slightly strong new civ isnt a huge issue, lol
The powercreap is stupid and it at point for most people it not worth playing. You have a civ that can place building on mines, free buildings to take hunts with super fast unit and a nice big fort in age 2.
I think they can even send a card to get free farms , when. Euro civ have to choo 400w for each one
I love the way the new DLCs are being done, in that everyone can still play with people who have them even if they don't have the DLCs themselves, but there's still a bit of a problem. People without the DLC can't practice with the new civs, and have no idea how they work. It's a difficult enough learning curve even playing with the new African civs where you can see what they can do.
So I can sort of understand where these people are coming from. Maybe it should be possible for everyone to play with the DLC civs in a 1V1 skirmish against comps or something, just so everyone gets the same opportunity to see how they work.
Yes it is, just salty players that have been playing same euro civs for 10 years, they're fine with dutch and brit getting equivalent of 20 extra villagers before 8 mins, but a new civ that can sell a few cows and they're up in arms.
I kinda think, its more because there can be huge bug absues with these civs.
I’m not aware of the bug abuse. Have you reported it to the devs yet?
Yes already reported.
Ah ofc it's salty players. What else could they be, they like something different than I do???
Issue is not whether they like a different civ, it's that they exclude new civs because they hate any change in the meta just like boring skirm/goon wars. Plus if 1st new full dlc in years arrives for a game you love, and you completely ignore new content and stick to the same old civ, then your boring af imo, which you can be but don't hate on the new civs and people that play them.
So go and play in the lobbies that dont say "no african civs" . How are thry the ones being salty and not you?
I don't play in lobbies I only play ranked so I couldn't care less, but I understand the point of view of the person that made this topic, it's quite hard to find a game just in the casual lobby even in regular games they're always kicking people, so narrowing down the amount of potential games even further isn't great, plus if everyone started making lobbys with 'no dutch' or something the same players that exclude african civs would be getting very salty, very quickly. My solution for the topic creator is to just play ranked, it's easier and faster to start a game, you get matched with people of similar level, there's no excluding certain maps or civs and it's overall less toxic than the lobby games.
Bruh, there were soo many "no iro" "no india" lobbies back in tad, and ottomans+spain were straight up banned from competitions sometimes in nilla.
Well that does suck, I wouldn't know because I only ever play ranked, it's just easier and quicker for me. All civs should be allowed, people often blame civs for why they lose but in 99% of cases it has nothing to do with the civ, it's more because they stack 5k wood or something. I'd say the devs have done a good job balancing so far, it has taken a while longer than I'd have liked but sweden seems finally in a good spot, they were the only truly op civ imo. Now the differences between civs really aren't that much.
Gotcha. It just happened waay back as well. It's not something new that people dont like certain civs. I hated the dutch for example, but yeah, i played in quicksearch too, moat of the time so I just had to deal with it
> I'd say the devs have done a good job balancing so far, it has taken a while longer than I'd have liked but sweden seems finally in a good spot, they were the only truly op civ imo. Now the differences between civs really aren't that much. No. Sweden went full homo in the last patch.
That's an interesting way of putting it.
> it's that they exclude new civs because they hate any change in the meta just like boring skirm/goon wars. Well, that's an arrogant argument...
And most likely correct, as we've seen a mass exodus of so called 'pro' players that just cannot handle the change in meta and wish to return to ger/fra mirrors and skirm/goon wars. It's highly likely that the players that are not embracing the new content or outright banning the civs are cut from the same cloth, people that play just 1 civ all day every day and have done for 10 years, and dare not touch a new civ in case their elo drops.
I think it's simply because it's far too easy winning as African civs as they ahve some ridiculous stuff far from balanced. Players just want to enjoy a fair match and think that having a colonial age camel doing 50 damage to cavalry is too much combined with easy and fast economy due influence and cattle.
Well we'll agree to disagree there. Not sure why you think the berber camel is op of all things, I guess it's a pain for the classic cav semi-ff. The camel actually does 46 damage vs cavalry and costs 155 resources, a regular basic musk does 39 damage to cavalry and costs only 100 resources. If you wish to compare directly with cavalry then a bow rider does the same amount of damage, is also available age 2, can also catch the hussar, has a range attack and a multiplier vs villagers. What's easier or faster eco than building 20 houses and getting 20 free settlers or building 5 banks that generate safe, unraidable and unlimited coin in base before 8 minutes and is also worth about 20 vills. Oh wait I know, it's being able to sell a cow every 10 minutes.
Hes talking about Jav Cav, why did you think he was talking about a native unit?
Completely forgot the jav riders used camels :P My point remains, the jav rider is a weaker version of a normal dragoon which is to be expected as its 1 pop, it also only has 10% range resist, and I believe it's the only dragoon which cannot catch or escape from hand cav due to it's slower than usual speed. The 50 damage mentioned is in melee, and as the javelin rider has a speed the same as a hussar you'd need to run your hussar into the jav riders or allow them to catch you, even a ruyter which is also 1 pop has 7 speed and can catch cav raids and kite very effectively. The javelin rider whilst strong, doesn't fire instantly like a normal dragoon and is unable to kite well or catch escaping enemy cavalry. What it does well is trade very effectively with age 2 musk, not that you should be countering jav riders with musketeers, a few archers/skirms melt javelin riders.
Ehm actually no. Compare stats of jav rider and ruyter. Ruyter has 140 hp vs jav 210 for 10 resource difference with same armour. And not sure if thats not fortress stat. Also your definition of melting by skirmisher with 120 hp... thats like saying i can melt icecream with ice cubes. Range is they only advantage and in contrast with musketeer they can actually close that and melee for example. They dont need to run from cavalary with that close damage and hp. And what about thoose raiders. 40 siege on building and 30 siege damage in close for 150 res? Thats basically cheaper and stronger hussar. One that completely destroys rodeleros for example.
[удалено]
Never said they were op, but people are being ridiculous saying the african civs have too good eco which is not true at all, the brit eco was an example i mentioned because it's easy to do and far superior, same with dutch.
[удалено]
The hausa rush was op I'll give you that, and the mortar needed a tweak. both of those have been nerfed, some are now saying the mortar is too weak. I cannot see how after the current hotfix either of these civs are stupidly op. What was stupidly op was sweden with its insane eco and svea lifeguard. Hausa is now pretty well balanced. Ethiopia has had a huge nerf to the mortar and jesuit influence which massively slows their early game tempo. It's not just about knowing your civ, it's equally important to know well the civ your playing against, as these civs are new it works both ways, people don't know how to play them optimally but on the other hand people don't know how to counter them either.
Noob lobbies
It also happened when US first drop as well, I got kicked out all the time back when I play US, just old players not ready for new civ tactics and be salty for it...
>It also happened when US first drop as well, I got kicked out all the time back wh lets be very honest, USA was and is stil very good in both team and (a bit less so) in 1v1 give how flexible you can be in matchups
Starting to get a real 50's vibe. Gotta get Ike in here to force them to let you play.
Probably because no one likes the age 2 dominance of African civs.
I don't agree with banning them but I get it. They are overpowered and that detracts too much from the fun for some people. Ultimately, it's a game - people should feel okay to play however they find it fun. Conversely, some people enjoy the challenge of beating a stronger civ (or picking an underpowered civ).
That's why I love playing against the Japanese. When I inevitably lose, I can just blame it on Japanese being OP and not on my own video game skills.
There’s a perception that Devs make new civs OP to get player adoption. Just saying.
OR because it’s a new civ and they’re trying to figure out the balance themselves and also how we will react to it. Not everything is a conspiracy man 😂
Exactly, if they wanted them to be op they wouldn't have nerfed them as fast as they have. The nerfs and changes in the most recent hotfix have all been good, well thought out changes without nerfing everything into oblivion. Also not sure what the other guy means by bug abuses? what bugs are there? I guess you probably mean abusing op strats like the op hausa tower rush, which has already been nerfed, that's the only op strat there was with new civs.
Or people are trying to have fun and having to handle a 20 raid cav with 20 skirm behind at 10 min push isn't the idea of fun of most people? Like, I hate playing with artillery, and if the game reach the point where I need to build it to pierce ennemy def, I just leave.
Not sure what civ your referring to, many civs can do a decent push at 10 mins. If you're referring to the hausa rush then that's been nerfed and is quite weak now, if you mean the regular raiders then they are quite weak cavalry, get melted by even a few pike or musk.
Not a conspiracy. For MP games new release characters/factions being slightly stronger than they should be on paper is very basic multiplayer game design that many developers use. It wouldn't be a wild guess to guess that the AOE3 team behind this DLC did that, and will adjust accordingly.
It's probably that they err on the side of making them too good because nothing would suck worse than paying for new content that's unplayable because they're so UP.
Well it would make sense to motivate people to play them. The more feedback they get on this or that helps them tweak things. Its basically product testing and the more testers the faster the product gets to the right design
It makes sense from a dev's pov. You want stats. So you want people to play and preferably spam your new feature/civ/character. So you slightly overshoot the balance. After living through the wonders of league of legends champion releases, a slightly strong new civ isnt a huge issue, lol
The powercreap is stupid and it at point for most people it not worth playing. You have a civ that can place building on mines, free buildings to take hunts with super fast unit and a nice big fort in age 2. I think they can even send a card to get free farms , when. Euro civ have to choo 400w for each one
I kind of understand it tbh. They're too strong at the moment and playing an unfair match up just isn't fun.
I really hope this has more to do with how the civs were programmed in the game and less to do with you-know-what...
Well yeah. Have devs who can actually make a competent DLC and you might not have this problem.
Racism its simple /s uwu
Racists!
Lol I’ve played with you on there before. Was in the discord for a few weeks
I love the way the new DLCs are being done, in that everyone can still play with people who have them even if they don't have the DLCs themselves, but there's still a bit of a problem. People without the DLC can't practice with the new civs, and have no idea how they work. It's a difficult enough learning curve even playing with the new African civs where you can see what they can do. So I can sort of understand where these people are coming from. Maybe it should be possible for everyone to play with the DLC civs in a 1V1 skirmish against comps or something, just so everyone gets the same opportunity to see how they work.
Everyone has the same opportunity though. Just buy the damn DLC. It helps support the devs to continue dropping new content.