Balance is out of wack - Devs please stop the pay 2 win DLCs

[seperamos]

Food allows you to expand your cities faster which allows you to build mor province improvements and special province improvements?
Nature/Chaos (Barbarians) can be quite scary as they can have a rush early game as well. (that being said, I would like for more Nature tomes that are not animal related (which we are slowly getting them...)

Oh hey, barbarians rush faster than other cultures, that's not very balanced!

 

[Codyksp]

You mp guys got the avenger and peacekeeper nerfed primal was heavily nerfed wizard kings were nerfed and on and on. so many games where mp whined so our toys got crushed by the nerf hammer again and again and again.

Avenger was pointed out in a discussion and a developer looked into it and said it was out line. Nobody "got it nerfed" by "whining".
Peacekeeper was mentioned as being out of line with other T3 Ranged. Nobody said "nerf nerf". We just want balance between them.

Is it really up to us what final decisions are made? Do you think we decide whether something is nerfed or buffed? No. We don't.

They should buff other rulers. Champions are god awful now the only unique thing they have is to give one unit an extra turn like maybe twice big deal. They have no economic bonuses and are incredibly weak in combat especially with the massive nerf to the item forge. I would give their 20% xp bonus to all their units and add a universal rank bonus to their tier 4 governor trait. Then remove all that standing next to each other limitation to their army buff line. That plus their signature skills would make their army a lot stronger with no forging cost. Also give their 20 city stability back. The champions are better at running the empire since they are actually much more attuned to the race and command and train their armies much better

For wizard kings just buff their casting points again so they get 50 points more again. that plus channeling ritual would make them a threat with a lot more spells and more powerful ones.

For dragons give them roar by default and buff their governor trait or their hoard and realy people don't think tail swipe especially now that it ahs a useful upgrade is good.

We have seen the patchnotes for 1.2 just nerfs to GK and nothing to boost the others

I have always advocated for buffs over nerfs. 80% of my mod consists of buffing things, I'm not even joking when I say this.
We call out the imbalance, whether it's things being "OP" or "UP". Both sides of the conversation are frequently had.
If you don't believe me, do some research. We frequently call things "bad, useless, horrible" and other unkind words.

The developers are the ones who choose what to do with that feedback. The community has no hand in this decision.

Or you could vassalize a free city with a different culture with polearms and recruit through the rally of lieges. Take wonders and recruit units outside your build in the same way. You could also focus on spells that stun limiting their movement speed. Or you could cast lightening torrent and keep spamming lightening spells and attacks to build up cascading damage. You don’t need to hard counter every single unit you can just play the game on its terms

I'd love to see you actually trying this in a real match. Honest to god, I swear on my life. I'd absolutely enjoy watching you try.
This is why I keep saying I don't want to discuss fictional settings with people who don't play multiplayer. You don't understand.

 

[Codyksp]

What do you and your "community" want multiplayer to be like, cody? This game doesn't have a great MP lobby system like classic BNET did. I can't show off my prized pantheon member as an avatar to other MP players, so what really is the point to this parallel balance request?? Why can't giants choose to be either good at crafting, good at combat, or good at a specific economy? They don't get casting points like WK or ES get access to, and that's FINE.

Uhm. Wizard King is currently the worst ruler in the game. ES gets +10 World Map CP, that's not a real bonus.
Giant Kings don't "choose" that's the whole issue. They are just good at everything, too good at it.

The extra 30 CP a Wizard King gets, and the small bonuses to combat spells do not make them equally as strong.
Their personal power is worse. Their crafting is worse. Their economy is worse. They have no army power either.

You keep trying to focus on the wrong things, maybe you're misunderstand something, I don't know what's going wrong.
I am not removing uniqueness, I am not asking to take away choice. I am saying that the full package is not balanced.

It depends on the type of balance you are trying to achieve. It's insane to think a base halfling champ should hit for the same damage as a giant warrior, defender, Spellblade, or death knight!

There's no reason a Giant King should have better army support or economical knowledge than a Champion. But he does.

Dragons and giants are great counters for each other in melee combat. They don't have to be the same as the rest of the rulers.

Again. Not advocating for making anything "the same". Advocating for balance. Strengths and weaknesses.
I want to be able to pick any of the 4 rulers and not feel like I've already lost the game at faction creation.

People who dont participate don't get a say in future developments. Choices shouldn't be reduced for the sake of players who will optimize no matter what updates are given or taken away. MP will always optimize. We all just want MORE options and strategies that CAN be optimized.

Again. Nobody said anything about removing choices. Where do you keep getting this idea from? I never asked for that.
My entire balance mod is about creating MORE choice through BALANCE. How are we removing choices from your game?

By making weak things stronger and strong things weaker, you make them have (roughly) the same power level and make them viable.
Neither one of these has anything to do with removing what makes a unit or spell or ruler unique. It's all about the numbers.

There's no reason why we can't have common sense consensus for single and multiplayer games.

You're right. But there are too many people who engage the conversation in bad faith.
How can we have a discussion when we have people saying "just don't play with X or Y"?

 

[Jolly Joker]

Reading all this - well. I'm fully SP, but I do realize that I can't say ANYTHING about "balance" as such. Why? Because my idea of balance is based on THE AI as opponents. And the AI isn't known to optimize the way it plays, whatever the hell it's doing.

So when I play SP I only see that doing this and that I beat the crap out of the AI - or vice versa. But the AI isn't "unbiassed". It doesn't use things the way they can be used. It doesn't optimize.

Which means, when it comes to "balance", I only trust the MP guys.

HOWEVER: the problem, being SP, is - the AI. Playing SP I don't get anything out of perfect balance, if the AI can't handle it.

Now. A SIZABLE part of the game - any game like this, actually - is having the human player facing up against superior (AI) numbers). This includes "gimmicks" - stuff the AI can't or won't use and is used by the SP to overcome difficult numerical odds. Which are of course overpowered.

So optimizing enchantments is a way to beat superior AI numbers because AI doesn't follow that up to max. That makes it the only viable option when playing PvP.
You can have a balanced game where the challenge is to build a consistent strategy - but in those cases the AI is either "pre-programmed" to the max or "unorganized" (inconsistent).

The bottom line is, there is a serious problem and that problem is based on the fact that the opponents for SP can't play the game very well. Soircerer King is basically turning this around and making a game out of it, playing with this premise.

So there is no easy solution, that much should be clear.

 

[lucaluca]

Reading all this - well. I'm fully SP, but I do realize that I can't say ANYTHING about "balance" as such. Why? Because my idea of balance is based on THE AI as opponents. And the AI isn't known to optimize the way it plays, whatever the hell it's doing.

So when I play SP I only see that doing this and that I beat the crap out of the AI - or vice versa. But the AI isn't "unbiassed". It doesn't use things the way they can be used. It doesn't optimize.

Which means, when it comes to "balance", I only trust the MP guys.

HOWEVER: the problem, being SP, is - the AI. Playing SP I don't get anything out of perfect balance, if the AI can't handle it.

Now. A SIZABLE part of the game - any game like this, actually - is having the human player facing up against superior (AI) numbers). This includes "gimmicks" - stuff the AI can't or won't use and is used by the SP to overcome difficult numerical odds. Which are of course overpowered.

So optimizing enchantments is a way to beat superior AI numbers because AI doesn't follow that up to max. That makes it the only viable option when playing PvP.
You can have a balanced game where the challenge is to build a consistent strategy - but in those cases the AI is either "pre-programmed" to the max or "unorganized" (inconsistent).

The bottom line is, there is a serious problem and that problem is based on the fact that the opponents for SP can't play the game very well. Soircerer King is basically turning this around and making a game out of it, playing with this premise.

So there is no easy solution, that much should be clear.

I don't think it's a real problem, single player versus multiplayer.

Current game, playing as frost giant king with special areas or whatever they're called, with crystal dwelling, on brutal.

Giant king makes easy early game battles and economy (mana specifically for frost).

The dragon skeleton areas give me full access to dragons, granted, I need to build the tier 4 townhall but by mid game I have it.

Crystal dwelling, for a few easy quest, gives me infinite knowledge for 10 turns, where I get a shit ton of tomes.

Playing on brutal, I expected a challenge, but with this setting I get a normal/easy game mode. The game basically failed to give me what I wanted based on the settings I chose, and I'm not a very good player either.

People here say I should have picked another ruler or another setting, but I paid for the DLC, I want to play with the shiny new things, and they are not providing me a 'brutal" or even somewhat difficult challenge as I expected based on the scenario set up I chose.

As I see it, the only way to balance single player for me to have what I paid for is to listen to the multiplayer guys who are just asking for a basic level of equilibrium between the various options and choices. Having a better, not perfect, balance between the various strategies and options would improve the fun for everyone, not just the multiplayer guys.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Not necessarily. Because you don't play against human opponents.

When you play SP, the balanced game is, that you, making better use of everything overcomes the numerical advantage of the AI. That's obviously isn't about you. If a player has a serious numercial advantage you'd lose to them if they were as good as you.
AI is just an ILLUSION. If you have a tight game, the illusion is good. If not, it isn't. But balance doesn't come into play here. Balance is something you can check if players are equally versed. A player wipes the floor with opponent - things aren't balanced.

 

[Astronlmo]

I don't think it's a real problem, single player versus multiplayer.

Current game, playing as frost giant king with special areas or whatever they're called, with crystal dwelling, on brutal.

Giant king makes easy early game battles and economy (mana specifically for frost).

The dragon skeleton areas give me full access to dragons, granted, I need to build the tier 4 townhall but by mid game I have it.

Crystal dwelling, for a few easy quest, gives me infinite knowledge for 10 turns, where I get a shit ton of tomes.

Playing on brutal, I expected a challenge, but with this setting I get a normal/easy game mode. The game basically failed to give me what I wanted based on the settings I chose, and I'm not a very good player either.

People here say I should have picked another ruler or another setting, but I paid for the DLC, I want to play with the shiny new things, and they are not providing me a 'brutal" or even somewhat difficult challenge as I expected based on the scenario set up I chose.

As I see it, the only way to balance single player for me to have what I paid for is to listen to the multiplayer guys who are just asking for a basic level of equilibrium between the various options and choices. Having a better, not perfect, balance between the various strategies and options would improve the fun for everyone, not just the multiplayer guys.

You have a beautiful option to not use dwellings. As well as a friendly reminder, that they are avilable to EVERYONE. They will give benefits to everyone, including their artifact happening (the leader who starts it, so we, will get only small reward when somebody researches something, the research bonus is for EVERYONE).

 

[seperamos]

Uhm. Wizard King is currently the worst ruler in the game. ES gets +10 World Map CP, that's not a real bonus.
Giant Kings don't "choose" that's the whole issue. They are just good at everything, too good at it.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere! My position is that Giants and Dragons should remain the most powerful melee rulers, compared to champ and wk's that focus on melee intense builds as well. This is assuming that giants, dragons, champs, and wks have melee enhancing skill chains or spell chains for melee combat. Rulers that take a specific path should be weaker in other possible paths like magic, range, or economic improvement. That should be a fair way of implementing rulers using asymmetric balance.

People will disagree on how many casting points wks should have, but they should have more than champ, dragon, or giant. They have melee capability unlike ES, so ES may need to have the most casting points of all rulers with wk a close second. So the list of most CP could look like this: ES, WK, Dragon, Giant, Champ. I'd love to see more polls, surveys, or votes to see if there is consensus on this. A ruler must be better in one area than others.

The extra 30 CP a Wizard King gets, and the small bonuses to combat spells do not make them equally as strong.
Their personal power is worse. Their crafting is worse. Their economy is worse. They have no army power either.

That is debateable, other single or multiplayers may disagree. How do we know how many base CP is enough? Does each ruler really need their own crafting system area of expertise? Hard facts and math examples may be needed to prove this objectively instead of anecdotally. We want this game to be fun for everyone in a reasonably fair way. There has to be strategies for or against each build and playstyle.

You keep trying to focus on the wrong things, maybe you're misunderstand something, I don't know what's going wrong.
I am not removing uniqueness, I am not asking to take away choice. I am saying that the full package is not balanced.

The problem is, everybody has a different view on what perfect balance looks like. I'm OK with dragons and giants punching harder if I can stack range and polearm units and items against them. I'm ok with them using items to stay relevant mid to late game combat if combat is their focus. Maybe automatic resource bonus should be removed for rulers? Maybe warfare, ranged/magic, or economic development should be leveled up by skills chains, reknown levels, or cultural attributes? We need to have logical discussions on what the differences should be and having pros/cons within an acceptable range that's not gamebreaking.

There's no reason a Giant King should have better army support or economical knowledge than a Champion. But he does.

The most logical way to fix extreme utility of giants is to coax giant players into builds that encourage one mastery of another. Combat focused giants should not be able to master building or crafting, and vice versa. There are ways to do that without weakening their base combat capabilities. It depends on scale of power and players putting points into one build or another. If this is a community problem, there should be a community solution that both single and multi players agree on.

Again. Not advocating for making anything "the same". Advocating for balance. Strengths and weaknesses.
I want to be able to pick any of the 4 rulers and not feel like I've already lost the game at faction creation.

But we have strengths and weaknesses already! What type of balance are you trying to achieve?? What does the multiplayer community consider to be the necessary strengths and weaknesses of these rulers?? I want to hear more of them expressing their thoughts too.

Again. Nobody said anything about removing choices. Where do you keep getting this idea from? I never asked for that.
My entire balance mod is about creating MORE choice through BALANCE. How are we removing choices from your game?

By making weak things stronger and strong things weaker, you make them have (roughly) the same power level and make them viable.
Neither one of these has anything to do with removing what makes a unit or spell or ruler unique. It's all about the numbers.

When you make the strong weak, and the weak strong, you are left with two bland rulers that can't outdo each other in any area. Let ruler A choose one from multiple builds, and ruler b can either counter it, or choose a build that benefits their ruler AND faction development. There are many variables here that must be considered before drastically changing the design of the rulers for personal or short term goals.
The people should vote on whether this is necessary to change.

You're right. But there are too many people who engage the conversation in bad faith.
How can we have a discussion when we have people saying "just don't play with X or Y"?

And that's still a valid way to play. Certain strategies may not be feasible with certain rulers, cultures, tomes or units. But we should be trying to expand the strategies available that are within the floor and ceiling of the game's inventory of strategies.

 

[Dreepa]

I never said you can't have opinions on the game. But if you don't play multiplayer how can you claim to know about it?
To be able to meaningfully contribute to a discussion you have to actually understand the complexities of the topic.
When I talk about how PvP battles play out and what the struggles of our community are, are you able to understand?

You can still have opinions on all kinds of topics that would influence your single player sessions, like actual changes.
Once details are being discussed, everyone can contribute input from their own perspective. This is totally fine.
But people in this thread are screaming bloody murder just at the drop of the word balance. As if the game will implode.

90% of the MP community has stopped giving any feedback because they feel like they're talking to wall. It's unfortunate.
I am putting myself forward, stepping into the crosshairs of your anti MP guns, to represent at least my own community.
I know there are people here who just press X and who antagonise me just for the sake of it, without providing arguments.

But I will never stop trying to reach the people who might be able to do something.


You're forgetting one crucial detail. In Age of Wonders 4 you make a lot of very influential choices pre-game.

• Form Traits
• Society Traits
• Culture
• Ruler (and their Class)
• Starting Tome

None of these can be adjusted. This makes a lot of Form Traits and Society Traits a trap.

Let's say I go for Arcane Focus or Strong, but I need a unit that doesn't benefit from this.
Or what if I go for a mounted trait but end up needing a unit that is unable to use mounts?

What this ends up doing is forcing a super bland "cover your bases" experience.
Which is exactly why Tough+Resistant were picked in 90% of the MP games.

The same reason everyone now picks Giant King.
The same reason everyone still picks Fabled Hunters.

Do you see the point I am trying to make? This game is about as flexible as a steel rod.

The pre-determined stuff is way more like poker. You get a hand. And you get shared cards (the map / the enemy).
Either what you got dealt fits or it doesn't.

Because the hand you get dealt is not designed to beat all other hands. It is designed to win vs AI, with the optional bonus of also playing against other humans.


That aspect will never be balanced for MP. That's just impossible.
Civ6 is the same. Victoria + sea map? GG.
Start next to Gilgamesh in ancient start? He plays hardcore? GG.

Same for Endless Space. Craver next to you? They play hardcore? GG.

Trying to fit these kind of 4X games into a fully balanced MP experience is a nightmare, but more importantly, not the focus.
The percentage of sales that go to these kind communities are negligable. Let it be a some hundred, granted even a 1000 players (I doubt it reaches that number).
That's nothing that warrants extensive consideration to the deepest level.
It's basically impossible to make it work while also making a game for the other 700.000 players that just play mid-core or casual, SP, or MP with friends in an alliance, doing comp-stomp.


I really believe you want something out of the game that it cannot, by design and intent, ever achieve.

Tweaking some numbers, sure.
Putting a team of designers to non-stop tweak a live-service hardcore PvP game with gazillion of combinations that are all viable and balanced against each other while adding post launch content that interferes with everything every 4 months?
Simply financially unviable, if not impossible by nature.

 

[Codyksp]

Not necessarily. Because you don't play against human opponents.

When you play SP, the balanced game is, that you, making better use of everything overcomes the numerical advantage of the AI. That's obviously isn't about you. If a player has a serious numercial advantage you'd lose to them if they were as good as you.

This the point I repeatedly try to make but people (who don't play MP) just keep ignoring it.
Advantages in MP are highly toxic, they can snowball out of control very quickly.

AI is just an ILLUSION. If you have a tight game, the illusion is good. If not, it isn't. But balance doesn't come into play here. Balance is something you can check if players are equally versed. A player wipes the floor with opponent - things aren't balanced.

Same for this. I'm surprised we are both in agreeance here and that you understand me.
The only way to gauge game balance is with human vs human gameplay. Not AI.

 

[Codyksp]

When you make the strong weak, and the weak strong, you are left with two bland rulers that can't outdo each other in any area. Let ruler A choose one from multiple builds, and ruler b can either counter it, or choose a build that benefits their ruler AND faction development. There are many variables here that must be considered before drastically changing the design of the rulers for personal or short term goals.
The people should vote on whether this is necessary to change.

You misunderstand. Balance is a package. I can nerf a Giant King's melee power and they can still be the best melee Ruler.
Just like I can buff a Wizard King's CP without touching anything else to give them more power in their total budget.

Do you understand what I'm saying? It's not always about focusing on 1 thing. Sometimes you have 5 things and all 5 are shit.
So to solve this problem you should make (for example) 2 of them better. That's also a form of balance to look at doing.

It's not only about adding something or removing something. Simple number tweaks can already help a lot.

And that's still a valid way to play. Certain strategies may not be feasible with certain rulers, cultures, tomes or units. But we should be trying to expand the strategies available that within the floor and ceiling of the game's inventory of strategies.

Yes, we are fully aligned on this goal.

 

[Jolly Joker]

@ Cody
I agree completely with you when it comes to identifying the problem. I just don't agree with your solutions.
Because a better MP balance doesn't automatically make the game a better SP experience - it may make it even worse. Because, as you agree, MP balance has nothing to do with SP experience.

 

[P5552]

What's the synergy between the two of them? Or is it just that Fabled Hunters is that powerful?

Can someone explain to me why Fabled Hunters is considered so strong?

The synergy is they can't be picked together because it provides a starting bonus of an extra ranged unit and Mystic culture doesn't have any ranged unit, keeping them incompatible with one another.
Surprisingly noone mentioned it so far.

 

[seperamos]

@ Cody
I agree completely with you when it comes to identifying the problem. I just don't agree with your solutions.
Because a better MP balance doesn't automatically make the game a better SP experience - it may make it even worse. Because, as you agree, MP balance has nothing to do with SP experience.

Cody has an issue with how the ruler types are balanced. There has to be a consensus on what that balance is supposed to look like. I want asymmetry instead of parallel rulers.

Not to mention the multiplayer scene is faster paced and will exploit every advantage ruthless. But I think both sides can agree that a certain number of strategies and builds should be viable, as well as a certain number of counter builds and counter strategies. It starts with affinities, it starts with rulers and the affinities they want to specialize in, and then the additional affinities, cultures, enchants, and minor transformations they take on.

It's not a hard ask to use giants to counter dragons or dragons to counter giants in different ways. When these two monsters clash in single or multiplayer games, it should echo in miniature the lore of the primeval wars these 2 powerful creatures fought against each other. The other rulers build up with or against them.

 

[Arcantos_the_Storyteller]

We want to play with Landmarks, and Shops, and Happenings, and Dwellings. We like the change of pace.
But we do not want them to catapult 1 player to infinite power and make them unable to be toppled.

... But the point of Landmarks, Shops, Happenings and Dwellings is that they are a random element to the game that are very much worth interacting with and going out of your way to seek out and claim/do the quests/buy from? Even if the strongest examples of them are tapped down a little, wouldn't their very nature mean that they will still be swinging games in the random fashion you have been complaining about?

Like, I'm sorry, but this seems like an impossible ask.

They should buff other rulers.

This I very much agree with this. The Dragon Lord is in a strong state currently, especially if the GK is tapped down. It just needs its governor sorted out so it's not so weak. Also, return the Defensive Claw to more than just the Defender and Spellblade cowards! Let me play my defensive Death Knight Dragon!

Wizard Kings certainly need to have their governor sorted out as well. Too focused on mana and the casting points being linked to it was an excellent means of managing that side of it, but maybe give them a touch more at Tier 3 & 4? And make its special abilities more powerful, as it could likely do with some more personal power and omph in battle.

I feel like the Champion is pretty good, the extra actions is nothing to sneeze at and is has one of the best Governerer, but maybe some tweaking is necessary.

The bottom line is, there is a serious problem and that problem is based on the fact that the opponents for SP can't play the game very well. Soircerer King is basically turning this around and making a game out of it, playing with this premise.

I mean... AI are always going to be inferior to a real person, so I feel like that's natural?

Doesn't mean we can't have important discussions about balance, even if we only play single-player. Like highlighting how some social traits are just, much stronger, and others are very undertuned.

The synergy is they can't be picked together because it provides a starting bonus of an extra ranged unit and Mystic culture doesn't have any ranged unit, keeping them incompatible with one another.
Surprisingly noone mentioned it so far.

Kinda silly that this is the case honestly... is any other culture restricted like this? From picking up a social trait due to not having X type of unit in its roster?

 

[lucaluca]

Cody has an issue with how the ruler types are balanced. There has to be a consensus on what that balance is supposed to look like. I want asymmetry instead of parallel rulers.

What do you mean by 'parallel rulers'? We also want asymmetry, but we want an asymmetry that works.

Make everything as asymmetrical and different as possible but of similar total power. For me they can balance giant kings by, as a random example, nerfing their defence against range attacks to 0 or something. Make them very different from other rulers but not the best ruler above everyone else. What's the point of having something always be better than something else? Where is the fun or strategy in that?

It's like the warlords manticores spam of aow3, that was dreadful and not fun.

 

[seperamos]

What do you mean by 'parallel rulers'? We also want asymmetry, but we want an asymmetry that works.

Make everything as asymmetrical and different as possible but of similar total power. For me they can balance giant kings by, as a random example, nerfing their defence against range attacks to 0 or something. Make them very different from other rulers but not the best ruler above everyone else. What's the point of having something always be better than something else? Where is the fun or strategy in that?

Nobody is asking for giant rulers to be better than other rulers. Giant kings are supposed to be better than either a single champ or a wk in melee if all 3 of them max out melee skills though. Dragons are supposed to be their counter. Each ruler type is supposed to be better at one area than the others. Any ruler except ES can go for melee or ranged skills at the expense of magic/archery or economic bonuses. There has to be a sacrifice against the build the player chooses. That's when it can be exploited by multiple strategies to achieve reasonable asymmetric balance.

Both giants and dragons are large units, which exposes them to a variety of ranged, polearm, and magic counters. They are exposed to specific giant and dragonslaying weapons.

They're not undefeatable gods of battle either here. It does require careful planning and tactics to bring them down.

 

[lucaluca]

Food allows you to expand your cities faster which allows you to build mor province improvements and special province improvements?
Nature/Chaos (Barbarians) can be quite scary as they can have a rush early game as well. (that being said, I would like for more Nature tomes that are not animal related, which we are slowly getting them...)

the speed of expansion is logarithmic, the more you expand the slowest it becomes, and +10 or +100 food becomes very similar in its effect. And it tops at 30.

Research is also logarithmic but the benefit you get from every research step is enormous compared from the benefit of one extra province.

 

[lucaluca]

Nobody is asking for giant rulers to be better than other rulers. Giant kings are supposed to be better than either a single champ or a wk in melee if all 3 of them max out melee skills though. Dragons are supposed to be their counter.

we are saying that right now, giant kings ARE the best rulers at everything: melee, economy, crafting, support.

 

[seperamos]

we are saying that right now, giant kings ARE the best rulers at everything: melee, economy, crafting, support.

Then the logical solution is to force giant players to pick a lane with skill selections instead of an automatic bonus. Players progress to a combat giant, which restricts max economy and crafting goals. Same for maxing economy which weakens their late game combat potential. Same for maxing crafting, which weakens their combat/economy potential.

But I'm not yet convinced this is a major problem. We need more inputs from the other MP and single player community.