Sure, but rapid increase early can lead to more resources 10 turns from now. I do agree that after 50-60 turns there might not be that much more advantage, but for the first 20 turns that early growth might pay off if used properly.
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
.png){kind=avatar}
It only works in rts because they tend to balance factions around having counters for every scenario. In something like Age of Empires, most, if not every faction, has some form of anti-archer, anti-cavalry and anti-infantry, to varying degrees.
In AoW4, that's not the case. There are 8 types of non-mythic combat units, and every culture is limited at most 5 of those types. And only 3 types have counters (Shock > Shield > Polearm > Shock), of which not every culture has all of the three, and the few who do have one of those as a T1 unit, a.k.a. too weak against a T3 or T4 threat.
Oathsworn can't pick Fabled Hunters (including Harmony) due to lacking a T1/T2 Ranged unit.
Oathsworn and Reavers can't pick Scions of Evil either due to lacking T1/T2 Shield and Shock units.
- 3
That's not the problem. In theory it doesn't matter how good or bad the AI is because you can just adjust economy.
But that's not how the game is working. It's not that the AI is equally weak no matter what.
The AI as an opponent simply has no defining quality.
Example: Let's say the tactical AI does nothing at all. In battle - nothing. That leaves retaliations for th AI to do damage.
Consequently, the AI picks anything and everything increasing the damage and the amount of retaliations and build a ton of units. The players figure out in no time that Ranged combat is the way to go from start to finish and they can beat the AI then without any losses and with minimal amount of units.
But that doesn't tell us anything about balance. It doesn't tell us in reality that ranged is OP. The only thing we can say is that the AI is inept and we abuse its blindside.
Extreme example, but graphic.
That's of course even more true for strategic map behavior. The AI cannot be looked upon when it comes to economy development, how much of anything anyone can produce and so on, because the AI isn't really playing. It's just faking.
The AI can only improve by so much before people complain the ai is cheating them or playing too optimally. It has to mimic human players as closely as possible.
- 2
I play MAGE again for the beauty of the world.
Always inferior to other options, even if, efforts have been made by devs to break this curse ( : p ) What is the problem ? :
1 In auto, AI play BAD the battle. Mage are extremely susceptible to who engage first. AI weirdly don't understand that and rush. You kill the strategy with just this thing. Could be extremely easy for dev to program : If team mainly mages = regroup / wait the foes, then use 6 hex abilities.
Mage benefit a lot of peoples grouped together. Bottleneck effect. With that you correct a lot of problem.
2 Stay others problem, like unit extremely squishy. Almost no critical, not so good damage early, no keepers mark to save your ass, no native slippery...
If not, end game, mage can be devastating now (objectively), but until that...
Always inferior to other options, even if, efforts have been made by devs to break this curse ( : p ) What is the problem ? :
1 In auto, AI play BAD the battle. Mage are extremely susceptible to who engage first. AI weirdly don't understand that and rush. You kill the strategy with just this thing. Could be extremely easy for dev to program : If team mainly mages = regroup / wait the foes, then use 6 hex abilities.
Mage benefit a lot of peoples grouped together. Bottleneck effect. With that you correct a lot of problem.
2 Stay others problem, like unit extremely squishy. Almost no critical, not so good damage early, no keepers mark to save your ass, no native slippery...
If not, end game, mage can be devastating now (objectively), but until that...
- 1
We've established that the AI is not a challenge for most players.
We've established that single player can be won with any choice.
We've established that a lot of options in the game are underpowered.
We've established that a handful of options in the game are overpowered.
We've established that single player and multiplayer have some overlap.
So tell me, what is so incredibly wrong about wanting a game with more balanced choices?
Why would single player not be improved if the balance as a whole was also improved?
Half the things multiplayer people do aren't even done by the single player audience.
Meaning that in a a lot of scenarios these changes wouldn't even impact that player base.
Think about it for a minute, if 75% of the "weak" stuff was made better, don't we all benefit?
This would include nerfing 25% of the "strong" stuff, so what? Why is this all doom and gloom?
People need to stop grabbing pitchforks because their abuse vs the AI might become weaker.
We've established that single player can be won with any choice.
We've established that a lot of options in the game are underpowered.
We've established that a handful of options in the game are overpowered.
We've established that single player and multiplayer have some overlap.
So tell me, what is so incredibly wrong about wanting a game with more balanced choices?
Why would single player not be improved if the balance as a whole was also improved?
Half the things multiplayer people do aren't even done by the single player audience.
Meaning that in a a lot of scenarios these changes wouldn't even impact that player base.
Think about it for a minute, if 75% of the "weak" stuff was made better, don't we all benefit?
This would include nerfing 25% of the "strong" stuff, so what? Why is this all doom and gloom?
People need to stop grabbing pitchforks because their abuse vs the AI might become weaker.
- 2
- 2
- 1
There hasn't been any polls or surveys, so nothing has been definitively established. The multiplayer group shouldn't just arbitrarily dictate changes without extensive testing or acceptance from the larger community.
This kind of anecdotal garbage is how we got the hero rework to happen where mages can only do 2 affinity damage types and all heroes are set in 7 defined classes, where before we had at least 20 possible archetypes! We don't even have an adequate number of World of Warcraft or DND basic class archetypes or builds available yet!!
Every attempt to "balance" this game removes previous choices and makes the current design worse than what it was before. I want to see a plan and an endgame that will accommodate the vocal minority and the paying silent majority first.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
And what larger community would that be? 90% of the people who play this game don't engage in communication.
Actually, the multiplayer community probably gives the most feedback on average, despite being far smaller.
We are the people who play this game daily/weekly for hours on end against other skilled human players.
What feedback am I going to get from Casual Bob who plays 1 hour per week against an Easy mode AI?
When it comes to balance you need to talk to players who are actively testing different game options.
The multiplayer community had nothing to do with the hero rework. This was a complete surprise and Triumph's choice.
Don't try to blame what you dislike on a small group of people without actually providing any proof of your claims.
And what choices were removed? I think you didn't even read the hero rework Dev Diary or any of the others.
The developers always explain why major reworks were performed, and they themselves chose to do so.
How can they choose? Because they, unlike you or me, have ALL the feedback and metrics visible to them.
Your entire post is honestly disrespectful to the multiplayer community and the developers at the same time.
Attempting to create a scapegoat to throw your darts at, because you're upset about a previous game change.
- 4
- 2
You're never going to get perfect balance in a game that prides itself on creative development of heroes, factions, and units. You can try restricting classes, spells, stats, units, and battle roles. But you need enough content and viable strategies to keep players interested in the game.
The content definitely needs to be tweaked. But there has to be a clear understanding of what the problems are and what the endgoal is. Constant changes without clear goals might do more harm than good.
This thread was made to gauge how people feel about the new content and DLC power creep.
And I can say with certainty the vast majority has not spoken against this. There is agreeance.
So, clearly new content is too powerful compared to the content previously released. Invalidating it.
This makes strategies stale. It makes replayability non-existent and it makes people leave the game.
So why are you making doom scenarios? Nobody has ever mentioned a single thing you've listed.
Lowering something from 20 to 16 damage, for example, is not a restriction, it's simply balance.
Reworking a garbage unit into a playable, fun, thematic unit is beneficial to everyone involved.
Making unit counters work as originally intended by the devs is simply fixing a broken design.
Yet you keep throwing this shade at me and others that we only want to nerf everything and remove uniqueness.
Then you quote the hero rework as an example, which we had absolutely nothing to do with. Just to blame us.
Then with this blame in mind you are no longer engaging the conversation in good faith, merely to push back.
Here's what I and people who shared my thoughts have said:
- New content is causing power creep.
- Extremely OP things should be nerfed a bit.
- Underpowered things should all be buffed.
- OP SP features as paid content hurts MP.
And this is what the bandwagon people immediately flood the topic with:
- No don't touch my game, it's perfect already.
- MP is toxic and destroys everything it touches.
- You are trying to kill the game's uniqueness.
- Your community is not relevant, go away.
But how can we have a discussion if there are bad actors who flood the topic with posts and "X"?
Not a single person here has suggested the removal of anything unique, fun or thematic to the game.
If you can quote anyone in these 5 pages that suggested removing something, be my guest. I'll wait.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
- 1
... Well yes, that is quite true. But that doesn't mean Single Player individuals can't have thoughts about balance. They just have to compare options against each other from their play experiences. Or, you know, just, looking?
Look me in the eye and tell me that Great Builders is as strong as Wonder Architects.
- 3
Well. I think that these two are not easily comparable, because one - Great Builders - can be calculated EXACTLY (you know excactly what you get) while the other - Wonder Architects - completely depends on a) the Wonder and b) How far away it is. I would say, that WA is a gamble while GB is a safe bet. So WA is more "interesting/flashy", whereas GB is the stuff you'd pick in a game you hope to win because you are the better player - if there wasn't any better skills to have .
- 1
Yes, some society traits are way better than others and in this case I think Great Builders should be buffed instead of nerfing Wonder Architects. Maybe making Great Bulders have everything costing 50% less would be a start?
But, again, Triumph needs to tell what their plan is and then make a beta for people to test it and evaluate there. Also, it doesn’t help for their data gathering if basically everyone and their mother is playing multiplayer with mods.
- 2
Wonder Architects already gives you a cleated bronze wondwr nearby, you can probably reach it in 10 turns, there’s no discussion here. Then it is a matter of scouting and making other cities near other wonders. So it is not much of a gamble.
- 2
It is, because it depends on the wonder (what it gives). You don't need a wonder CLEARED necessarily. If you can reach it ins 10 turns you can clear it anyway when you can assimilate it. So that's not much of a gain.
- 1
You do realize you don't have omniscience when it comes to the whole aow4 playerbase, right? I've seen plenty of players downvote your ideas before, you cant claim to speak for everyone without the facts behind you. Multiplayer games don't give you absolute knowledge of every line of data needed to make these claims. You've provided no polls, no surveys, no chorus of multiplayers presenting facts and data that can change hearts and win minds to your way of thinking. You haven't presented any evidence except claiming that you're bored because certain form traits do this and certain rulers do that. You cant balance a game based on personal feelings and claiming to be a spokesperson for the multiplayer community that has yet to back YOU up with the facts we're asking for. Notice how most of your posts have few if any green checkmarks? It's because youre making claims using personal opinions and not backing those opinions with actual game statistics and data.
You HAVE to convince me and others, including the devs, better than just simply saying everything sucks and only the mp community can make it better.
You cant just nerf one thing and buff another and then claim it's balanced. You have to make changes within a reasonable framework. That framework provides the ceiling where the most optimizing stat notating multiplayers can reach within the boundaries that the devs have set for the game, down to the floor where casual players and role players have freedom and creativity without worrying about competition from other players. You have to enact your updates and changes to work within that box and appease both types of fans.
What is that framework, Cody? What type of "balance" are you trying to achieve here? I genuinely want to know what your ideal vision of the end state is without having personal feelings attached to it. I want that vision to encompass a certain amount of creativity that's possible even within competitive scenarios.
I want to see that vision combine with the dev's vision to transcend Blizzard and Creative Assembly's atrocious game development standards and knock them off their high horses. I have high hopes it can be done.
I'm jaded, cody. Jaded, cynical, and distrustful of most gaming companies and Triumph managed to bring back a small spark of hope after the disastrous total warhammer 3 launch.
I dont consider what im doing as throwing shade at you, i respect your experience, your skills, and most of your ideas. But I've observed some things in the game change strangely over the course of season 2, and your advocacy had some part to play in it. So forgive me if I want to keep the good parts of the game good and point out the bad parts of the game, over and over until somebody can present the facts I need to see to change my mind to their way of thinking. I've had nothing but hope for the game after season 1, and the hero rework has fallen short of the expecting and removed options and strategies I've had before. I don't know who to ultimately blame for that wreckage. I read the hero rework diary and the claims in it don't measure up to the reality. Mages have less options in affinity magic than before, 2 affinity skills every 4 levels don't match what was removed.
You advocated for nerfs to the +2 def and +2 res form traits, and when that happened, did any of the other traits get reworked to be more useful? I can't recall any other traits that can still tempt me against adding more res or defense. So you have been responsible for advocating for some nerfs before, and I'm right to be wary that your zealousness of your vision might degrade other choices, options and strategies in the future.
These are still vague assertions that only you are claiming in such dramatic fashion. Where is the math to back up your claims? Give the community facts to back your point of view. Which new content is causing power creep? Has this happened before? What should the purpose of new content be? What is the framework that best promotes balance for this game and what type of balance does the community want to see? How will asymnetrical balance be established and in what areas? What do you consider extremely OP, and are you skilled enough in strategy and tactics to make such a claim without at least a sliver of doubt in its hyperbole? What exactly do you consider underpowered, and do the single and multiplayer communities agree with this clearly personal perspectives?
These questions have to be asked and answered. What does the ideal aow4 game look like? Are we close to achieving it? What does reasonable achievement look like?
The game should be improved, not changed because somebody lost a multiplayer match to a new ruler type. Some people don't want to fix whats not broken, and their wishes should be considered and countered with factual data that point to clear flaws and imbalance.
These are personal opinions, but you can't deny multiplayers and single players have drastically different goals. Both of their goals should be contained within a sane framework that can respect both of their views simultaneously.
The hero rework started that trend by destroying player hero crafting and replacing the old system with a constrained and restricted new system that has only 7 defined classes. No paladins, no arcane archers, no seige empowering classes, no cavalry classes no bards, no class evoltion or advancement, and no way of choosing different affinity AOE spells for mages or spellblades. The old system, even with its flaws, was a unique herocrafting system within a 4x. I miss it very much.
Thats a very dramatic reaction to disapproval of some of your ideas. I'm positive nobody hates the multiplayer community, but the game was designed with single player as the focus and multiplayer as the afterthought. There is no way to show off custom avatars or realms, and the lobbies are not as active as classical b.net was. Most users are accessing the game through different software portals. What is triumph's answer to bnet? How can better multiplayer games happen without a better social matchmaking system?[/QUOTE]
This is your quote from page one, these are the things you said you wanted to change or remove:
Before these things can be changed, we need to see the data on why and how. We need consensus, and as of today this post has 7 downvote and only 3 maybes. It's not enough to require a change. More people need to provide data backed input before we can start agreeing on further changes.
I want this game to succeed and be popular, cody. I also want to be able to fully enjoy it when it reaches its dev and community inspired end state.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
Do we really need an entire PowerPoint presentation and an Open Beta to buff it from +2 Gold to +4-5 Gold?
Do you really have to drag mods through the mud when you don't even know what they actually change?
Drop your bias, and then we can engage in a proper and honest conversation about changes.
- 2
- 1
If you're claiming the game has incredible issues with power creep and balance, it has to be from the perspective of playing unmodded games in both single and multiplayer, otherwise the data is tainted by personal mods tampering with regular processes within the game. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Heck, why not buff it to 10 gold or +100 gold? What are we comparing these buffs to??
- 3
This game will never be perfectly balanced. Gameplays of each cultures are so differents. I play again reavers recently. I only agree to tell there is cultures that work, other doesn't work. So eventually my list.
Optimal play and decent play are two differents things. So lets go for a list of decent play (Acceptable) VS problematic cultures.
DECENT Cultures
- Feudal. Frankly, now, it is a pure pleasure to play. Early is solid. Very good work of devs. Auto-promotion, T4, strong and useful bonus.
- Mystic. A lot of choice, more specialized play but efficient for medals, world spells (crazy with eldritch) and offensive play.
- Barbarian. Extremely efficient since day 1 ? Exceptionnal sunderer, exceptionnal T3, heal and run on command. One of the best culture building.
- Industrious. The best in economical early domain. No match with the rest of the cast, and perhaps the best culture for that.
- Primal. I don't like how work this culture but the totem animal make the early ok. That said, borderline (to me)
- Oathsworn. Honor blade is crazy good but the concept is very... specific for the three declinations. I prefer the Righteousness, but not a big fan despite everything. I don't like it, but globally playable.
PROBLEMATIC Cultures
- Reavers. Horrible early. I like this culture, I try to make that work. But when you play the new version of feudal, the fall is... hard. Whisperstone : when the first come, all is already finished. With High threat of world, sometimes not really possible to be in war with everything. The worst in this story is that devs will probably never upgrade this culture, due to the fact it is DLC one. T2/T3 Units are great, T1 far less. But early is the most important part of the game and quality of units don't do everything...
- Dark. Each time I try to play it, I must play with ranged and melee and I don't like to be forced to do that. It is not optimal. Problem now, cultures are more complex (feudal has at least three sides : free one stack with leader + king of stability building + auto promote units) Here not really as much. What is specific to this culture, other than the Weak(ranged) to damage boost (Melee) association?
- High. They need a spell or specifics unit to shine. The rest is meh with their weird (temporary) bonuses. Dusk hunter have a better range but without accuracy this is now problematic. Daylight spear rely on awakening if not, he has nothing specific... Awakener is a mage and generally even after a boost of devs, always a bad invest.
This is the only discussion that worth IMO. Cultures playable more than optimal play.
Optimal play and decent play are two differents things. So lets go for a list of decent play (Acceptable) VS problematic cultures.
DECENT Cultures
- Feudal. Frankly, now, it is a pure pleasure to play. Early is solid. Very good work of devs. Auto-promotion, T4, strong and useful bonus.
- Mystic. A lot of choice, more specialized play but efficient for medals, world spells (crazy with eldritch) and offensive play.
- Barbarian. Extremely efficient since day 1 ? Exceptionnal sunderer, exceptionnal T3, heal and run on command. One of the best culture building.
- Industrious. The best in economical early domain. No match with the rest of the cast, and perhaps the best culture for that.
- Primal. I don't like how work this culture but the totem animal make the early ok. That said, borderline (to me)
- Oathsworn. Honor blade is crazy good but the concept is very... specific for the three declinations. I prefer the Righteousness, but not a big fan despite everything. I don't like it, but globally playable.
PROBLEMATIC Cultures
- Reavers. Horrible early. I like this culture, I try to make that work. But when you play the new version of feudal, the fall is... hard. Whisperstone : when the first come, all is already finished. With High threat of world, sometimes not really possible to be in war with everything. The worst in this story is that devs will probably never upgrade this culture, due to the fact it is DLC one. T2/T3 Units are great, T1 far less. But early is the most important part of the game and quality of units don't do everything...
- Dark. Each time I try to play it, I must play with ranged and melee and I don't like to be forced to do that. It is not optimal. Problem now, cultures are more complex (feudal has at least three sides : free one stack with leader + king of stability building + auto promote units) Here not really as much. What is specific to this culture, other than the Weak(ranged) to damage boost (Melee) association?
- High. They need a spell or specifics unit to shine. The rest is meh with their weird (temporary) bonuses. Dusk hunter have a better range but without accuracy this is now problematic. Daylight spear rely on awakening if not, he has nothing specific... Awakener is a mage and generally even after a boost of devs, always a bad invest.
This is the only discussion that worth IMO. Cultures playable more than optimal play.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
- 1