Sioux Discussion Thread

No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by deleted_user0 »

zoom wrote:
momuuu wrote:EP Sioux is what you get when you balanced based on a bunch of extremely arbitrary principles that make little sense. It's wonderful isn't it?
You're funny. I'd say it's what you get when you consider RE Bow Riders and economy broken, making Teepees a viable feature in the process.


It's what you get when balancing is done by people who barely play the game and definitely don't play this civ. And on top of that repeatedly ignore those who do one or both of the aforementioned.

Most games last 15 to 20 minutes. Sioux never had an economic problem in this time frame. There was never a need for 5v. There was never a need for karni mata teepees. Especially considering the water overhaul now means water is viable for sioux. 5v was unnecessary but also irrelevant. It doesnt change much. Karni teepees should be moved so their availability isnt immediate. Or they should be removed. Start with that and go from there.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by momuuu »

iwillspankyou wrote:
zoom wrote:
momuuu wrote:EP Sioux is what you get when you balanced based on a bunch of extremely arbitrary principles that make little sense. It's wonderful isn't it?
You're funny. I'd say it's what you get when you consider RE Bow Riders and economy broken, making Teepees a viable feature in the process.

you are right, zoi, but I do not agree that BR had to be nerfed- Did not, and will not ever agree to that, untill you make sioux cav compatible to goons. If you do that, I would think the nerf is OK (I guess) :roll: how about that @momuuu :P

Fuck zoom hes a ouece of shit
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by momuuu »

zoom wrote:
momuuu wrote:EP Sioux is what you get when you balanced based on a bunch of extremely arbitrary principles that make little sense. It's wonderful isn't it?
You're funny. I'd say it's what you get when you consider RE Bow Riders and economy broken, making Teepees a viable feature in the process.

Its the result of weedspeed and zeroine basicsllly
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

  • Quote

Post by deleted_user0 »

Garja wrote:Ye the Sioux eco argument is parly overstated. Sioux eco is close to the one of Iros for practical purposes. This means that for the average lenght of a 1v1 game (up to 20 mins at least) they are able to produce as many units as other civs. Sure half of civs outgather them by a fair amount but when considering stuff like: free pop space, better unit shipments, cost efficient units (or rather favorable cost/stats ratio if you prefer) and last but not least almost granted vill raids then the gap is smaller than one generally thinks.
This is why civs like Brits or Japan outscales them badly but they can still win games. Then of course there is a no retunr point where the outscale is just too much but that's another story.

The problem with teepees is that now Sioux get a respectable eco on top of other pre-existent advantages. Also there is clear design issue in the fact that the civ was originally one with the weakest eco (hence requiring damage to stay in the game) while now the eco is basically on par and they don't have to constantly seek for a play anymore.



Yup, sioux like otto and to a certain extent spain and china is an eco is in the army type civ. This means you have to engage carefully and apply pressure constantly and you can't waste units in a way that eco cibs can because you have a harder time replacing them. Eco civs though generally have a harder time winning fights vs these kinda
civs. Winning vs these civs was done in a war of attrition. You lose fights until you win one, and then you replenish faster. Or had atleast, before esoc tried to give 3/4 of these civs some sort of eco option, while nerfing core units for 3/4 as well.

On re sioux needed to raid, and because of the bad maps this was easier, perhaps to easy. On ep i rarely see sioux players raid anymore. Ofc the maps make it harder but theres also no real need to take that risk.
User avatar
Russia Acolyte
Dragoon
Posts: 257
Joined: May 19, 2017

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by Acolyte »

:wood:
Australia Hazza54321
Pro Player
Winter Champion 2020 x2Donator 01
Posts: 8049
Joined: May 4, 2015
ESO: PrinceofBabu

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by Hazza54321 »

Cant think of a better sioux player apart from callen or goongoon ;)
Sweden tabben
Lancer
EWTNWC LAN Bronze
Posts: 593
Joined: Dec 30, 2017
ESO: tabben

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by tabben »

Can we make sioux warchief a bit less lame in age 1? The speed and HP plus being able to convert treasure guardians makes it strong already, but the snare on top of that lets you kill the opponent's explorer with very little effort. A majority of of esoc maps have some sort of outlaw type treasure guardian (like renegado which outrange the crackshot ability) or native warriors and once you have one or two of those you easily chase down any explorer who leaves their base.

The snare on France's native scout was considered too lame but sioux can lame you way easier on most maps. I think if Sioux historically had been played as much as France then people would complain alot more and ask for a similar nerf.

Suggestion: Remove the snare on the Sioux Warchief. There are already other explorers without snare so it wouldn't be super controversial. It does affect age 2 or 3 a bit since you can't (ab)use warchief for snaring while bowrider are attacking for example, but generally you anyways make and group hand cav with explorer later on and thus getting the snare. If possible you could also grant the ability to snare upon reaching age 2, to keep the nerf as small as possible.
Image
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

tabben wrote:Can we make sioux warchief a bit less lame in age 1? The speed and HP plus being able to convert treasure guardians makes it strong already, but the snare on top of that lets you kill the opponent's explorer with very little effort. A majority of of esoc maps have some sort of outlaw type treasure guardian (like renegado which outrange the crackshot ability) or native warriors and once you have one or two of those you easily chase down any explorer who leaves their base.

The snare on France's native scout was considered too lame but sioux can lame you way easier on most maps. I think if Sioux historically had been played as much as France then people would complain alot more and ask for a similar nerf.

Suggestion: Remove the snare on the Sioux Warchief. There are already other explorers without snare so it wouldn't be super controversial. It does affect age 2 or 3 a bit since you can't (ab)use warchief for snaring while bowrider are attacking for example, but generally you anyways make and group hand cav with explorer later on and thus getting the snare. If possible you could also grant the ability to snare upon reaching age 2, to keep the nerf as small as possible.

You can't remove the snare on the explorer, that would be unfair since all TWC civs have the snare, and Sioux need the snare later in the game.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by deleted_user »

#rougarekt
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by zoom »

tabben wrote:Can we make sioux warchief a bit less lame in age 1? The speed and HP plus being able to convert treasure guardians makes it strong already, but the snare on top of that lets you kill the opponent's explorer with very little effort. A majority of of esoc maps have some sort of outlaw type treasure guardian (like renegado which outrange the crackshot ability) or native warriors and once you have one or two of those you easily chase down any explorer who leaves their base.

The snare on France's native scout was considered too lame but sioux can lame you way easier on most maps. I think if Sioux historically had been played as much as France then people would complain alot more and ask for a similar nerf.

Suggestion: Remove the snare on the Sioux Warchief. There are already other explorers without snare so it wouldn't be super controversial. It does affect age 2 or 3 a bit since you can't (ab)use warchief for snaring while bowrider are attacking for example, but generally you anyways make and group hand cav with explorer later on and thus getting the snare. If possible you could also grant the ability to snare upon reaching age 2, to keep the nerf as small as possible.
It's certainly more or less abusable. On the other hand, the unit does do half damage to heroes. We should look at how players feel about that in the future. In case of a change, I would prefer removing snare or some speed, for Discovery age, only. The latter is already the case with the Brahmin Monks.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by Garja »

The rule for no snare is when you have 2 units in age1. I don't think there is much to do with the Sioux WC at the moment.
Image Image Image
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by deleted_user0 »

Lol oh dear lord snuphomet
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by momuuu »

Garja wrote:The rule for no snare is when you have 2 units in age1. I don't think there is much to do with the Sioux WC at the moment.

Japanese explorers snare right? And so does the Chinese one? And so does the dutch and french explorer right? The only two units that dont snare are the Indian monks I believe.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by deleted_user0 »

momuuu wrote:
Garja wrote:The rule for no snare is when you have 2 units in age1. I don't think there is much to do with the Sioux WC at the moment.

Japanese explorers snare right? And so does the Chinese one? And so does the dutch and french explorer right? The only two units that dont snare are the Indian monks I believe.


No. He meant explorers snare unless you have 2. Which is true. And if you have explorer plus scout then the scout doesnt snare. Which was true for all combos except fre nat scout (which was probs due oversight of them making it a regular trainable unit, asit didnt snare on nilla)
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by momuuu »

umeu wrote:
momuuu wrote:
Garja wrote:The rule for no snare is when you have 2 units in age1. I don't think there is much to do with the Sioux WC at the moment.

Japanese explorers snare right? And so does the Chinese one? And so does the dutch and french explorer right? The only two units that dont snare are the Indian monks I believe.


No. He meant explorers dont snare unless you have 2. Which is true. And if you have explorer plus scout then the scout doesnt snare. Which was true for all combos except fre nat scout (which was probs due oversight of them making it a regular trainable unit, asit didnt snare on nilla)

But explorers all snare?? I don't get it?
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by deleted_user0 »

momuuu wrote:
umeu wrote:
Show hidden quotes


No. He meant explorers dont snare unless you have 2. Which is true. And if you have explorer plus scout then the scout doesnt snare. Which was true for all combos except fre nat scout (which was probs due oversight of them making it a regular trainable unit, asit didnt snare on nilla)

But explorers all snare?? I don't get it?


No. Only civs with 1 explorer have snare. Civs with 2 explorers, japan and india, dont have snaring explorers

ah i made a typo. I meant to say, all explorers snare unless you have 2, in the first post
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by momuuu »

umeu wrote:
momuuu wrote:
Show hidden quotes

But explorers all snare?? I don't get it?


No. Only civs with 1 explorer have snare. Civs with 2 explorers, japan and india, dont have snaring explorers

ah i made a typo. I meant to say, all explorers snare unless you have 2, in the first post

Don't Japanese explorers snare?
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by deleted_user0 »

momuuu wrote:
umeu wrote:
Show hidden quotes


No. Only civs with 1 explorer have snare. Civs with 2 explorers, japan and india, dont have snaring explorers

ah i made a typo. I meant to say, all explorers snare unless you have 2, in the first post

Don't Japanese explorers snare?


No
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by Garja »

Also I meant that all the support units (dog, native scount, envoy, etc.) don't snare.
Image Image Image
Australia Hazza54321
Pro Player
Winter Champion 2020 x2Donator 01
Posts: 8049
Joined: May 4, 2015
ESO: PrinceofBabu

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

  • Quote

Post by Hazza54321 »

man wtf is up with the sioux hero , 30% rr and heavy cav tag, just makes inf even weaker vs sioux and goons even stronger, now people should just make 100% goon vs sioux with upgrades
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 2059
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: LĂĽbeck

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by Lukas_L99 »

Hazza54321 wrote:man wtf is up with the sioux hero , 30% rr and heavy cav tag, just makes inf even weaker vs sioux and goons even stronger, now people should just make 100% goon vs sioux with upgrades


Full goon just loses to wakina/br though.
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by SiegeDance »

I've followed all the posts and discussions since I stopped participating in somewhere around the end of 2016. Wow, had a real break! But all I see here are theories. For a civilization that gets the least play in any tournament, we are making such sure statements about how the civ stands against the rest. For all other civs, we are discussing on such minute elements based on actual games that are being played in the tournaments, but when it comes to sioux, changes are being made with no games played at ALL to back those changes up and their relevance. I think the only way I see forward to make this civ good and balanced is to encourage the pros in this community to take up this civ and play the tournaments. Maybe a tournament just for the sake of it! Sioux against the rest of the others. Heck, it's a part of the game, one more viable civ, more interesting match up possibilities. Only then the actual state of the civ as of now will be clear.

Currently, I think Sioux have too much uniqueness in their design, even for TWC civs, as was the case ever since, that it's alienating most of the players. I'm purely talking from the point of view of game design. The solution IMO is to scrape off too much of that uniqueness that they have and bring it more to the realm of the rest of the civs. And it will require DRASTIC changes to tackle this civ, not just to make them balanced, but also enjoyable for the players. Somethings that could be changed:

1. Make the Sioux require housing after an arbitrary pop, maybe 50, 100. Or maybe just for the military units and exempt villagers. Point is to make players invest in tepees with a primary intent to support population in some way, maybe after a certain stage in the game, maybe in the Fortress age. Not just for gimmicky boosts to attack, hit-points or gather rate. Majority of opinions that I get to hear is, Sioux are so easy and boring, which I agree to an extent. The kind of thinking you require with other civs when it comes to housings, resource management and all, don't factor in any way with sioux. It's just start the game, assign villagers to resources and pump units. No worries about being pop capped, the risks thereafter, and all the thinking and planning that makes the game enjoyable and competitive goes to dust. That alienates this civ right away. It's too much of a uniqueness, and not for the better. We can still keep the civs bonus of not requiring a teepee until a certain pop, or until a certain age. There is so much thought being put into other civs when they are played, that has no relevance to Sioux. Just too ALIENATED.

2. They are supposed to be a cavalry civ and we are buffing infantry and nerfing cavalry? That's just a terrible choice. The obvious way to go is to keep their infantry a tad bit less effective than their counterparts, and make their cavalry a tad bit more effective than their counterparts.That would make them a cav civ instantly. Also the way to make this cavalry dominance more easier is to tweak Rifle Riders. Currently they are like a gamble. Anyone would better stick with BR and AR. But if we remove their light cav tag and bonuses against heavy cav, but make them more effective against all infantry like a cavalry version of a falconets for other civs, as they lack a proper artillery unit. Also keep RRs bonuses against artillery. Make them more specialized. Less confusion and less chances of utter disaster or ultimate wins. That's what killing the civ. Either they are OP in certain aspects or UP in others. Need to bring a balance. Rifle riders are the key.

3. Make hunting viable late game through infinite Bison cards. Keeping the uniqueness without taking a toll at eco too much. I don't think we would require karniteepees at all after this. Let them suck at farming, who cares? Give them a steak for god sake.

4. Make Tashunkes trainable by the WC from colonial age, not as a regular unit from the corals. Just like Spanish wardogs and Chinese disciples. Limited numbers per age. Maybe 5 in colonial, 10 in fortress and so on. Right now, they are like, not much viability. I would go for ARs any day over tashunkes as of now. At least this way, they can come handy in case of emergency, in case you lose a coral or something.

5. Make Sioux WC only affect cavalry with the speed bonus. it doesn't even make sense affecting infantry as he's riding a HORSE! How are the infantry supposed to keep up? To compensate, make the sioux infantry slightly faster than their counterparts.

6. Regarding Siegedance, Let it only affect the cavalry but not as drastically as of now. Let it provide big siege damage bonus to Tashunkes and WC than other cavalry. Making Tashunkes a regular part of the game when it comes to siege. This is where Sioux is uninteresting atm. With every other civ, each one of their units see regular use, be it pikes, xbows, skirms, hussars, goons, falcs or their asian counterparts. Tashunkes? Nah. They are very situational and have not much to offer over AR and DS and they're supposed to be the best units? Joke. Stealth isn't a big part of the game really let's be honest. This way, at least they would have a siege potential combined with the WC.

This civ is in need of radical changes. It's not because it's OP or UP, that it sees less play. It's because it's too gimmicky. I can only wonder what native herbs were the game designers tripping upon when designing sioux as a civ. Just wanting to make it different just for the sake of it. It needs big design changes for the players to invest their time.

Regards.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Too long, to be honest.
User avatar
United States of America Darwin_
Howdah
Posts: 1446
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
Location: Boston

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by Darwin_ »

SiegeDance wrote:Currently, I think Sioux have too much uniqueness in their design, even for TWC civs, as was the case ever since, that it's alienating most of the players. I'm purely talking from the point of view of game design. The solution IMO is to scrape off too much of that uniqueness that they have and bring it more to the realm of the rest of the civs. And it will require DRASTIC changes to tackle this civ, not just to make them balanced, but also enjoyable for the players.

Sioux is not really all that unique. For all intents and purposes, they play very similar to germans if they didn't need to build houses and had dragoons.

This civ is in need of radical changes. It's not because it's OP or UP, that it sees less play. It's because it's too gimmicky. I can only wonder what native herbs were the game designers tripping upon when designing sioux as a civ. Just wanting to make it different just for the sake of it. It needs big design changes for the players to invest their time.

Radical changes are the last thing this civ, and ultimately this patch, needs. The problems with Sioux on RE were that bow riders were too lame, their defensive options were really weak, and that they had a weak eco potential which wasn't offset by Sioux's raiding advantages. These aren't giant, inherent problems with the civ, instead they can be fixed by very minor, but effective, changes.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Discussion Thread

Post by SiegeDance »

Darwin_ wrote:Sioux is not really all that unique. For all intents and purposes, they play very similar to germans if they didn't need to build houses and had dragoons.


Sioux is gimmick over basics. Every other civ sticks to certain basics that are the core part of this franchise since the vanilla AOE.

Let's go over some basics of the Sioux, from the design point of view. Sioux lack defence and eco but have no pop restriction, have speed, less reliant on coins, more on food, are SUPPOSED to have good military capabilities. Supposed to, because the units that COULD make their military composition more diverse and give them more combat choices are ill designed (looking at you Tashunkes and Rifle riders). You gotta give a civ an incentive to play for. Either eco, turtle, mass numbers, strong units, etc. Gotta have something. It's not about OP or UP, it's about an overall incentive to play a civ. Things that engage players. Now I'm purely talking from a game design pov, as I am a game designer myself, and from my experience it's about the players. I've followed the RTS games for a long time, and I've seen players playing a civ or a faction in a game, just because they LIKE playing it, even in tournaments, even though they might not be the civ that you can probably win most of the time! Now as a community reviving this game, the first focus should be on making all the civs accessible to most in terms of gameplay and tactics, while still retaining their uniqueness.

Darwin_ wrote:Radical changes are the last thing this civ, and ultimately this patch, needs. The problems with Sioux on RE were that bow riders were too lame, their defensive options were really weak, and that they had a weak eco potential which wasn't offset by Sioux's raiding advantages. These aren't giant, inherent problems with the civ, instead they can be fixed by very minor, but effective, changes.


Bow Riders were MADE lame, as a design choice, to compensate for what Sioux lacked. I agree that was a terrible design choice. But If we wish to make this civ balanced and more importantly, make players invest time on this civ, there has to be some radical changes. My question is, If sioux are balanced now, Why isn't anybody playing it? If Sioux are OP, again why isn't anybody abusing them in the tournaments? If Sioux are UP, why aren't people even willing to try playing them and see for themselves?

Because they suck from a design point of view. Requires less thinking, less tact, relying on broken "unique features". And as a competitive player who plays a lots of civs, nobody would want to include Sioux in their arsenal, as they are so weird. The tactics don't translate, the muscle memory doesn't translate, too alienated. And I guarantee, even if they reach a certain level of good balance, people would still not play it, at least on the competitive level.

What is more important, to arbitrarily and theoretically label a civ balanced? Or make it a playable civ? Every civ has good and bad MUs, every civ has weaknesses and strengths, so why Sioux isn't being played? And also for the same matter Ottomans? Because they suffer from the same problem. Taking the depth away from a civ. Either by not needing houses, not needing to make villagers, having ONE unit that just kills everything and such other poorly conceived ideas.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV