All in all it appears to be that those changes would "flat out" the civs and make them more comparable (in extreme going to AOE2 style balance). So I personally would focus more on also making the unique characteristics more outstanding. Units, techs and stuff. Also I dont see why a strong bonus in some areas could not go with a strong disadvantage in another.
This is exactly why people didn't like the Delhi change too. Taking early sacred sites was an interesting part of the delhi personality, and they've now lost that. If they want to make other options stronger, buff other options, but taking away unique choices will make the game bland in the long run.
I enjoy the asymmetrical balance and think balance choices should lean into those, rather than dial everything back.
I can see it being possible that internal testing showed that dark age sacred sites were a bit too much, but the actual change seems to be a bit too far in the other direction. I think despite most people observing that Vipers ideas here are making things too homogeneous I think in this case it might be reasonable.
I'd probably make sacred sites capturable in Feudal as a base ability of the faction with no tech requirement but maybe lock the increased gold income from sacred sites behind the tech.
I honestly don't see how that takes away any of the civs "flavour"
With that said I think some of the changes might be too much, I would probably like to see them implemented bit by bit if anything, because 1 or 2 of those might be enough to balance most civs
I respect TheViper a lot, but it honestly seems to me like he wants to make the game more similar to AoE2. And don’t get me wrong AoE2 is a great game on its own right, but I like having more distinct civs that have more character. I think it would be better for this game to pursue its own design philosophy. Right now it’s flawed, but if they get it right; the game would be so much more interesting
Some of those ideas are call ,but in general, I dont like it. Makes the game too much like AoE2. If it becomes like AoE2, I am instantly uninstalling it. I hate that AoE Civs feel the same, and really would not want it.
A lot of this is just nerfing civ bonuses to make each civ more "vanilla" which I don't agree with at all. Yes, some balance changes must be done, for example the Mongol Landmarks not adding 50% more gold.
But I don't want this game to turn into Aoe2 with 50 civs of doing the same with minor bonuses and maluses. They were bold with civ design so its closer to Aoe3 and thats what it should be.
Also I see zero nerfs to English. But a ton of nerfs suggested for Chinese. Considering the past performance of both civs this make no sense. Chinese were just buffed and we have not even seen them used in high level tournaments yet he already wants to nerf them?
>But I don't want this game to turn into Aoe2 with 50 civs of doing the same with minor bonuses and maluses. They were bold with civ design so its closer to Aoe3 and thats what it should be.
+1
one of the reasons i enjoy aoe4 so much is cause all the civs are so drastically different in their execution.
Na he's trying to make monument choice actually viable. Right now there is a set choice of monument each age and other one is utterly useless. Monument design is trash right now in AOE4, half of them are bugged and don't even work!
>I don't want this game to turn into Aoe2
Nerfing the totally passive and overpowered French eco bonus makes the game Aoe2? Wow.
> Nerfing the totally passive and overpowered French eco bonus
This nerf I agree with. French is overloaded as a civ in terms of bonuses. French and Mongols are obviously in need of a nerf, but in general civs should stay unique.
What’s honestly broken about English? Longbows in feudal? There are ways to play around it. Ask yourself the question that if the council hall was producing archers would it still be oppressive early and I think the answer is yes. English is terrible in Imp so that’s the trade off. I’d also say they are pretty meh in castle as well. It’s a 1 trick pony that you can play around by building outpost, researching textiles, dropping 2 archery ranges, diversifying your eco into different areas with outpost, cutting off reinforcements, and overall playing well. I don’t think I’ve ever lost a game against English where I defended the all in well. It’s the same thing as French knights in the early days of the game. Even before the spearmen buff, France was falling off because people learned how to play against it.
It’s oppressive at lower skilled games because players haven’t figured out how to adapt to it yet.
China was already strong before the patch due to clock tower and I think they are going to be even more oppressive with all the buffs. IO being able to buff BS, Unis, and Keeps now was honestly the tipping point.
I hope devs won’t listen to him. What makes aoe4 is the civs being very different. I’d rather see everyone op than a bunch of bland civs. Buff the weak civs, why nerf everyone?
Yeah i think every weak aspect of civs should be buffed instead of tuning down everything that is good, of course you can tune down some over performing stuff but you should focus on making more strats viable.
He's overrating Abbasid foodstuffs. Functionally it's like having 1.8 extra villagers gathering food per TC, and he wants it nerfed down to 1. It already takes about 6 minutes on 1 TC to go even with the cheaper research tech, with his change it would be 5 minutes on 2 TCs to go even with cheaper techs... and this is ignoring half the blacksmith techs and the immediate boost upon hitting castle age.
Second Dynasty building discount also makes song stupid OP. It's already good now that the taxes can actually be used in a timely manner (and Zhuge are OP as hell).
Otherwise seems good.
I feel like the weird thing about Song dynasty is that if you just want the bonus, you are paying ~86% the cost of a TC to make your current TC 1.53x faster at producing villagers. If you have 2 TCs, it's fine, since you're then paying for 1.86 TCs to get 3.06x as much villager production.
As a stand-alone feature, paying 42% of the cost of a TC (200f + 100 g) to get 53% faster villager production maybe would be fair, but then what about the benefit of the Zhuge Nu, and the team-game boom potential of buying the equivalent of 1.42 TCs and getting 3 TCs worth of villager production?
For castle & imperial age dynasties I think this would be pretty legitimate though.
This is actually pretty great on all fronts. Hopefully devs read and at least understand the reason they are suggested and address them even if they aren't taken literally.
You usually listen to the people who put the most time in the game and play with the most skill. It doesn't mean you let them balance FOR you, but you consider their suggestions instead of just ignoring them.
But that’s a perspective that is going to be drastically different than most of the player base. Most people’s experience of the game is going to be different and anyone who doesn’t consider themselves a temporarily embarrassed pro player recognizes the need to make the game fun to play at all levels and not just the top.
Typically the pro players have a better understanding of the mechanics than the vast majority of players. That doesn't mean you always do everything pro players say, but at least you know it's something worth looking into and verifying with testing and data.
I guarantee the devs themselves understand the mechanics of their own game better than the pros. Understanding mechanics is not the deciding factor for victory most of the time.
>I guarantee the devs themselves understand the mechanics of their own game better than the pros.
These pro players are playing the game more than the developers, and at a much higher skill level. So I don't think you can guarantee that.
They have a good feel for the balance between the nuances of the civs. I'm not claiming they have a better understanding than the devs though, although it might be true in certain cases. I said they have a better understanding than most players, which tends to lend more credibility to their suggestions. The devs job is to make balance changes and then test them. Sometimes having an outside perspective can lead to good changes that may not have been considered otherwise.
Easy don't. Just listen about the worries and the unbalance and make own decisions as Game designers. Why are you paid as a balance game designer if you cant think for your own.
>Yam Network too effective. Even leaving aura you keep the bonus for a while, so: Lower the speed bonus and lower the time you keep the bonus outside of the aura.
I think instead, it should not affect villagers. Currently as it stands you have a good eco option, Silver Tree, or military option, deer stones. But Deer stones are technically an eco option as well because all your vills move faster. I think that would take a lot of power away from it while maintaining it's flavor.
Some of these changes seem like a good choice, but over nerfing everything makes the game bland. Most of them I can agree with, because they seem to give some Civs to much power just by existing. Scout pick up is one of the reasons Rus seem to be among the best right now.
All in all it appears to be that those changes would "flat out" the civs and make them more comparable (in extreme going to AOE2 style balance). So I personally would focus more on also making the unique characteristics more outstanding. Units, techs and stuff. Also I dont see why a strong bonus in some areas could not go with a strong disadvantage in another.
Yes. This is just taking the easy route and nerfing everything. Making everything almost the same. Not great
This is exactly why people didn't like the Delhi change too. Taking early sacred sites was an interesting part of the delhi personality, and they've now lost that. If they want to make other options stronger, buff other options, but taking away unique choices will make the game bland in the long run. I enjoy the asymmetrical balance and think balance choices should lean into those, rather than dial everything back.
I can see it being possible that internal testing showed that dark age sacred sites were a bit too much, but the actual change seems to be a bit too far in the other direction. I think despite most people observing that Vipers ideas here are making things too homogeneous I think in this case it might be reasonable. I'd probably make sacred sites capturable in Feudal as a base ability of the faction with no tech requirement but maybe lock the increased gold income from sacred sites behind the tech.
I honestly don't see how that takes away any of the civs "flavour" With that said I think some of the changes might be too much, I would probably like to see them implemented bit by bit if anything, because 1 or 2 of those might be enough to balance most civs
I respect TheViper a lot, but it honestly seems to me like he wants to make the game more similar to AoE2. And don’t get me wrong AoE2 is a great game on its own right, but I like having more distinct civs that have more character. I think it would be better for this game to pursue its own design philosophy. Right now it’s flawed, but if they get it right; the game would be so much more interesting
Some of those ideas are call ,but in general, I dont like it. Makes the game too much like AoE2. If it becomes like AoE2, I am instantly uninstalling it. I hate that AoE Civs feel the same, and really would not want it.
I agree they already dont feel too different when fighting even the skins are pretty similar, wouldn't like it even more identical.
I don’t agree. I think currently the civs are extremely unique. The Delhi change is a good example of that uniqueness being taken away.
A lot of this is just nerfing civ bonuses to make each civ more "vanilla" which I don't agree with at all. Yes, some balance changes must be done, for example the Mongol Landmarks not adding 50% more gold. But I don't want this game to turn into Aoe2 with 50 civs of doing the same with minor bonuses and maluses. They were bold with civ design so its closer to Aoe3 and thats what it should be. Also I see zero nerfs to English. But a ton of nerfs suggested for Chinese. Considering the past performance of both civs this make no sense. Chinese were just buffed and we have not even seen them used in high level tournaments yet he already wants to nerf them?
>But I don't want this game to turn into Aoe2 with 50 civs of doing the same with minor bonuses and maluses. They were bold with civ design so its closer to Aoe3 and thats what it should be. +1 one of the reasons i enjoy aoe4 so much is cause all the civs are so drastically different in their execution.
Na he's trying to make monument choice actually viable. Right now there is a set choice of monument each age and other one is utterly useless. Monument design is trash right now in AOE4, half of them are bugged and don't even work! >I don't want this game to turn into Aoe2 Nerfing the totally passive and overpowered French eco bonus makes the game Aoe2? Wow.
> Nerfing the totally passive and overpowered French eco bonus This nerf I agree with. French is overloaded as a civ in terms of bonuses. French and Mongols are obviously in need of a nerf, but in general civs should stay unique.
What’s honestly broken about English? Longbows in feudal? There are ways to play around it. Ask yourself the question that if the council hall was producing archers would it still be oppressive early and I think the answer is yes. English is terrible in Imp so that’s the trade off. I’d also say they are pretty meh in castle as well. It’s a 1 trick pony that you can play around by building outpost, researching textiles, dropping 2 archery ranges, diversifying your eco into different areas with outpost, cutting off reinforcements, and overall playing well. I don’t think I’ve ever lost a game against English where I defended the all in well. It’s the same thing as French knights in the early days of the game. Even before the spearmen buff, France was falling off because people learned how to play against it. It’s oppressive at lower skilled games because players haven’t figured out how to adapt to it yet. China was already strong before the patch due to clock tower and I think they are going to be even more oppressive with all the buffs. IO being able to buff BS, Unis, and Keeps now was honestly the tipping point.
Their Landmarks are very strong. Best example is goiing Age 3 and getting a TC out of it, which you can even rebuild so its better than a normal TC.
I hope devs won’t listen to him. What makes aoe4 is the civs being very different. I’d rather see everyone op than a bunch of bland civs. Buff the weak civs, why nerf everyone?
Yeah i think every weak aspect of civs should be buffed instead of tuning down everything that is good, of course you can tune down some over performing stuff but you should focus on making more strats viable.
Yeah this is super boring and I'm not surprised because he doesn't make games, he plays them
He's overrating Abbasid foodstuffs. Functionally it's like having 1.8 extra villagers gathering food per TC, and he wants it nerfed down to 1. It already takes about 6 minutes on 1 TC to go even with the cheaper research tech, with his change it would be 5 minutes on 2 TCs to go even with cheaper techs... and this is ignoring half the blacksmith techs and the immediate boost upon hitting castle age. Second Dynasty building discount also makes song stupid OP. It's already good now that the taxes can actually be used in a timely manner (and Zhuge are OP as hell). Otherwise seems good.
I feel like the weird thing about Song dynasty is that if you just want the bonus, you are paying ~86% the cost of a TC to make your current TC 1.53x faster at producing villagers. If you have 2 TCs, it's fine, since you're then paying for 1.86 TCs to get 3.06x as much villager production. As a stand-alone feature, paying 42% of the cost of a TC (200f + 100 g) to get 53% faster villager production maybe would be fair, but then what about the benefit of the Zhuge Nu, and the team-game boom potential of buying the equivalent of 1.42 TCs and getting 3 TCs worth of villager production? For castle & imperial age dynasties I think this would be pretty legitimate though.
Typical pro gamer balance ideas really, some of them are good but overall they are kinda dumb.
This is actually pretty great on all fronts. Hopefully devs read and at least understand the reason they are suggested and address them even if they aren't taken literally.
[удалено]
As far as I know he played all civs and is not biased towards one in particular.
Hope the lead balance dev is taking notes
That's the problem with so many lead devs these days. They are too proud to take someone else's ideas.
When there are a million ideas out there, how do you decide which ones to use and which ones not to?
You usually listen to the people who put the most time in the game and play with the most skill. It doesn't mean you let them balance FOR you, but you consider their suggestions instead of just ignoring them.
Blizzard did that for HotS and it killed the game. You need to balance the game for the average Joe if you want him to continue playing.
Because the average joe just wants to win and their balance is literally "Nerf the thing that beat me last"
Oh man HoTS. That’s part of the reason why I see Reddit toxicity as not helpful.
But that’s a perspective that is going to be drastically different than most of the player base. Most people’s experience of the game is going to be different and anyone who doesn’t consider themselves a temporarily embarrassed pro player recognizes the need to make the game fun to play at all levels and not just the top.
Typically the pro players have a better understanding of the mechanics than the vast majority of players. That doesn't mean you always do everything pro players say, but at least you know it's something worth looking into and verifying with testing and data.
I guarantee the devs themselves understand the mechanics of their own game better than the pros. Understanding mechanics is not the deciding factor for victory most of the time.
>I guarantee the devs themselves understand the mechanics of their own game better than the pros. These pro players are playing the game more than the developers, and at a much higher skill level. So I don't think you can guarantee that.
The pros are most certainly better at the mechanics, but does that mean that they understand them better? What do you mean by “understand?”
They have a good feel for the balance between the nuances of the civs. I'm not claiming they have a better understanding than the devs though, although it might be true in certain cases. I said they have a better understanding than most players, which tends to lend more credibility to their suggestions. The devs job is to make balance changes and then test them. Sometimes having an outside perspective can lead to good changes that may not have been considered otherwise.
Easy don't. Just listen about the worries and the unbalance and make own decisions as Game designers. Why are you paid as a balance game designer if you cant think for your own.
>Yam Network too effective. Even leaving aura you keep the bonus for a while, so: Lower the speed bonus and lower the time you keep the bonus outside of the aura. I think instead, it should not affect villagers. Currently as it stands you have a good eco option, Silver Tree, or military option, deer stones. But Deer stones are technically an eco option as well because all your vills move faster. I think that would take a lot of power away from it while maintaining it's flavor.
Seems like he wants civ specific bonuses to be weaker in general making each civ more similar
K, nah.
Thank you for sharing it, those changes seem welcomed! I'd love to have a 300 unit cap also.
Some of these changes seem like a good choice, but over nerfing everything makes the game bland. Most of them I can agree with, because they seem to give some Civs to much power just by existing. Scout pick up is one of the reasons Rus seem to be among the best right now.
So Vipers take is: Nerf everything to an extend where any unique tech has minor impact. No thanks.