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.