How to balance the civs

[bart331]

There is nothing wrong with op units, otto just needs to ageup at 5 min mark. This will give other civs tons of possibilities to counter them

The speed is op

[[Armag] diarouga]

There is nothing wrong with op units, otto just needs to ageup at 5 min mark. This will give other civs tons of possibilities to counter them

The speed is op

Yeah like india, they have op units, just slow them lol.

[iNcog]

wouldn't otto still be broken?

they lose one fight and it's over

[zoom]

There is nothing wrong with op units, otto just needs to ageup at 5 min mark. This will give other civs tons of possibilities to counter them

The speed is op

That depends entirely on how overpowered they are.

[bart331]

wouldn''t otto still be broken?

they lose one fight and it''s over

Well now you can go 2 tps stagecoach before making units and still be aggressive, imagina trying that while other has 5 cav in ur base or musks on ur fb plans. It will make them far more defensive. Also otto ff is now not punishable at all, with 1 min more time it can be punished.

So they can try same strats and the mechanisms are same, but it will become far more diffocult to pull it off.

[momuuu]

Just a random thought, but maybe if you make a new patch you should try to buff weak civs rather than nerf the stronger ones. Like, take india as the balanced civ (a good one because they are well designed) and try to buff the others civs to their power level. Many people have favorite civs and wont be eager to play a patch where their civ got hit by the banhammer really hard. If youd buff all civs to the india level and nerf iro and otto more people would be happy to play this patch with their stronger civs.

I know it sounds kinda stupid, but this is also exactly why deccan is so popular with lower level players.

[Garja]

There is nothing wrong with op units, otto just needs to ageup at 5 min mark. This will give other civs tons of possibilities to counter them

The speed is op

To be fair, if otto were to age up at let''s say 4.35 they would probably suck hard. Otto on paper is quite weak actually (crappy eco, expensive units, not really great late game mechanics). It''s just that their jan abus huss timing prevents any other strat to work.

[_venox_]

They have really strong units, mamelukes, spahis, janissaries and abus guns.

[Mimsy for President]

There is nothing wrong with op units, otto just needs to ageup at 5 min mark. This will give other civs tons of possibilities to counter them

The speed is op

To be fair, if otto were to age up at lets say 4.35 they would probably suck hard. Otto on paper is quite weak actually (crappy eco, expensive units, not really great late game mechanics). Its just that their jan abus huss timing prevents any other strat to work.

Couldnt agree more.

[Good ol Ivan]

To be fair, if otto were to age up at lets say 4.35 they would probably suck hard. Otto on paper is quite weak actually (crappy eco, expensive units, not really great late game mechanics). Its just that their jan abus huss timing prevents any other strat to work.

Couldnt agree more.

me too.
Thats why I think nerfing ottos will deprive them of everything...

[Mimsy for President]

Couldnt agree more.

me too.
Thats why I think nerfing ottos will deprive them of everything...

Otto is still balanceable imo.

[zoom]

Not Abus Guns...

[_venox_]

Them aging at 4.35 is a nerf.

[zoom]

Just a random thought, but maybe if you make a new patch you should try to buff weak civs rather than nerf the stronger ones. Like, take india as the balanced civ (a good one because they are well designed) and try to buff the others civs to their power level. Many people have favorite civs and wont be eager to play a patch where their civ got hit by the banhammer really hard. If youd buff all civs to the india level and nerf iro and otto more people would be happy to play this patch with their stronger civs.

I know it sounds kinda stupid, but this is also exactly why deccan is so popular with lower level players.

Balance should be targetted towards a level of strength that is optimal with regards to the least amount of changes required. I absolutely agree strong civilizations should not be over-nerfed.

[Garja]

They have really strong units, mamelukes, spahis, janissaries and abus guns.

Spahis are bad, really. They''re essentially 5 cuirs with the cav combat card.
Janissaries are dumb. Lot of hp, low attack. Musks in age3 are generally pretty useless. Abus are good in colonial because they''re essentially artillery (a ball of jan and abus works like musks and cannons) but their stats are essentially worth their cost. Actually even musks huss would do good vs jan abus if only the map had infinite resources in each player''s base.

[momuuu]

Just a random thought, but maybe if you make a new patch you should try to buff weak civs rather than nerf the stronger ones. Like, take india as the balanced civ (a good one because they are well designed) and try to buff the others civs to their power level. Many people have favorite civs and wont be eager to play a patch where their civ got hit by the banhammer really hard. If youd buff all civs to the india level and nerf iro and otto more people would be happy to play this patch with their stronger civs.

I know it sounds kinda stupid, but this is also exactly why deccan is so popular with lower level players.

Balance should be targetted towards a level of strength that is optimal with regards to the least amount of changes required. I absolutely agree strong civilizations should not be over-nerfed.

Im just thinking about the psychological aspect. If you are a master sergeant who only plays lets say, aztec, and you read the patch notes in which aztec is going to be nerfed pretty hard, are you going to play on this patch? Id say they wont, because why would you play on a patch thats nerfing your favorite civ.

If that patch slightly buffs aztec, Id be more willing to play on that patch. The fact that aztec is probably going to get worse overall is less notable for a lower level player than the fact that they got a slight buff' they dont really understand balance anyways.

If you make the median civ france, only 4 civs are going to get serious buffs. If you make it india, 9 civs will probably receive buffs. Thats all roughly, lets not get carried away by dicussing the curremt balance right now.

Is it relevant that lower level players will be more attracted to the patch? Probably not really for the part of the community to which this patch actually has relevance. But, the bigger the support for the patch, the bigger the chance of succes imo (succes being that maybe over half of the community plays on it).

[Goodspeed]

I don't see how Otto is weak on paper lol. They age up at sub 4 min consistently, get a free TP with their start (sometimes even 2) which makes the fast age up even better, have abus which are one of if not the best unit in the game, ?nd mams...

???

[bart331]

I don''t see how Otto is weak on paper lol. They age up at sub 4 min consistently, get a free TP with their start (sometimes even 2) which makes the fast age up even better, have abus which are one of if not the best unit in the game, ?nd mams...

???

Ye exactly thats why, 4:30 -5:00

[zoom]

Balance should be targetted towards a level of strength that is optimal with regards to the least amount of changes required. I absolutely agree strong civilizations should not be over-nerfed.

Im just thinking about the psychological aspect. If you are a master sergeant who only plays lets say, aztec, and you read the patch notes in which aztec is going to be nerfed pretty hard, are you going to play on this patch? Id say they wont, because why would you play on a patch thats nerfing your favorite civ.

If that patch slightly buffs aztec, Id be more willing to play on that patch. The fact that aztec is probably going to get worse overall is less notable for a lower level player than the fact that they got a slight buff' they dont really understand balance anyways.

If you make the median civ france, only 4 civs are going to get serious buffs. If you make it india, 9 civs will probably receive buffs. Thats all roughly, lets not get carried away by dicussing the curremt balance right now.

Is it relevant that lower level players will be more attracted to the patch? Probably not really for the part of the community to which this patch actually has relevance. But, the bigger the support for the patch, the bigger the chance of succes imo (succes being that maybe over half of the community plays on it).

I am aware of your point. Taking it into consideration, nerfing even the strongest civilizations should be done with care. However, overall buffing Aztec (for example) would be a bad decision, even if you did buff every other civilization in the game. It is simply a bad way of going about balancing the game.

[Garja]

I don''t see how Otto is weak on paper lol. They age up at sub 4 min consistently, get a free TP with their start (sometimes even 2) which makes the fast age up even better, have abus which are one of if not the best unit in the game, ?nd mams...

???

They have zero long term potential which makes them weak on paper. If you miss the jan abus huss timing then a pletora of civs can win comfortably.
We were talking about a hypotetical 4.35 age up for ottos. That would sux to the point that otto would suddendly be trash tier.

[bart331]

I dont see how Otto is weak on paper lol. They age up at sub 4 min consistently, get a free TP with their start (sometimes even 2) which makes the fast age up even better, have abus which are one of if not the best unit in the game, ?nd mams...

???

They have zero long term potential which makes them weak on paper. If you miss the jan abus huss timing then a pletora of civs can win comfortably.
We were talking about a hypotetical 4.35 age up for ottos. That would sux to the point that otto would suddendly be trash tier.

and thats where they belong

[Goodspeed]

Looking at the current Otto meta I agree, they are broken and have no place in this game. But with the right changes they could become a very interesting civ.

Kinda like that pathetic excuse of a civ Sioux

[momuuu]

Im just thinking about the psychological aspect. If you are a master sergeant who only plays lets say, aztec, and you read the patch notes in which aztec is going to be nerfed pretty hard, are you going to play on this patch? Id say they wont, because why would you play on a patch thats nerfing your favorite civ.

If that patch slightly buffs aztec, Id be more willing to play on that patch. The fact that aztec is probably going to get worse overall is less notable for a lower level player than the fact that they got a slight buff' they dont really understand balance anyways.

If you make the median civ france, only 4 civs are going to get serious buffs. If you make it india, 9 civs will probably receive buffs. Thats all roughly, lets not get carried away by dicussing the curremt balance right now.

Is it relevant that lower level players will be more attracted to the patch? Probably not really for the part of the community to which this patch actually has relevance. But, the bigger the support for the patch, the bigger the chance of succes imo (succes being that maybe over half of the community plays on it).

I am aware of your point. Taking it into consideration, nerfing even the strongest civilizations should be done with care. However, overall buffing Aztec (for example) would be a bad decision, even if you did buff every other civilization in the game. It is simply a bad way of going about balancing the game.

just bring them to the power level of india rather than france. Or bring every civ to the power level of some other tier 2 civ. Of course whatever would be reasonable, as it is going to increase the difficulty of balancing the game. But if its possible, its going to greatly increase the chance of the patch being a succes.

[_venox_]

Please take into consideration that not every civ needs the same macro and micro and knowledge, so if we balance civs do we do this at the highest level possible where really NO mistakes are made and you do things perfectly, or on a more general level which benefit more people? Like Ryan holding most pressure as China with still going for the trickle tower, which not many people can pull off since it requires perfect mm and other micro capacities.

[momuuu]

Please take into consideration that not every civ needs the same macro and micro and knowledge, so if we balance civs do we do this at the highest level possible where really NO mistakes are made and you do things perfectly, or on a more general level which benefit more people? Like Ryan holding most pressure as China with still going for the trickle tower, which not many people can pull off since it requires perfect mm and other micro capacities.

id say perfect level of play. But make it reasonable for low level players aswell.