Potential EP Sioux Update

[Kaiserklein]

You realize you're just nitpicking and so far literally everyone else disagrees with you, right? Nitpicking to a point where it's almost derailing the thread, and then you blame us for not producing a fruitful discussion? Lol

RE bow riders are "way too cost-efficient", happy with that?

[RefluxSemantic]

I would like to make the argument that it's fine for a unit to be slightly stronger than comparable units, if that serves a purpose of meaningfully defining a civ's playstyle in a way that is unique and interesting. But it's impossible to argue this when people keep throwing out "BuT iTs BrOkEn" which is impossible to discuss with because they don't provide a definition for broken and there is no universal definition for broken in this context. How can I then explain them it's not a counterargument to my point?

[gamevideo113]

Reason why bow riders are overpowered:
-Strenghts:
High damage
High mobility
Medium Hp
The simultaneous combination of the 3 above in the same unit
The unit is rather affortable and easily accessible
High upgradability
Best raiding unit in the game
-Weaknesses:
They take 1.5 damage from ranged infantry, that they can easily run away from and that is easily countered by axe riders.

[RefluxSemantic]

You realize you're just nitpicking and so far literally everyone else disagrees with you, right? Nitpicking to a point where it's almost derailing the thread, and then you blame us for not producing a fruitful discussion? Lol

RE bow riders are "way too cost-efficient", happy with that?

But Sioux has a really bad eco, so even if a unit is too cost-effecient in theory, in practice that's not really relevant, is it?

Like imagine a hypothetical civ, that is exactly the same as other civs, except their stuff costs half as much but they also gather resources half as quickly. Are their units overpowered then? Technically they'd be way too cost efficient.

[Mitoe]

I would like to make the argument that it's fine for a unit to be slightly stronger than comparable units, if that serves a purpose of meaningfully defining a civ's playstyle in a way that is unique and interesting. But it's impossible to argue this when people keep throwing out "BuT iTs BrOkEn" which is impossible to discuss with because they don't provide a definition for broken and there is no universal definition for broken in this context. How can I then explain them it's not a counterargument to my point?

diarouga already answered this.

It's just that the unit breaks the counter system and is much better than goons at everything.
I honestly don't care about semantics but a special unit is a unit which has its own balanced counter system. The brs counter system is simply not balanced.

"Broken" means it breaks the counter system. There is no counterplay to it because it already beats that which is supposed to counter it.

"Overpowered" simply means that it is strong enough that the effort of countering it is costly, difficult, and often hurts you more than it hurts them.

[RefluxSemantic]

I would like to make the argument that it's fine for a unit to be slightly stronger than comparable units, if that serves a purpose of meaningfully defining a civ's playstyle in a way that is unique and interesting. But it's impossible to argue this when people keep throwing out "BuT iTs BrOkEn" which is impossible to discuss with because they don't provide a definition for broken and there is no universal definition for broken in this context. How can I then explain them it's not a counterargument to my point?

diarouga already answered this.

It's just that the unit breaks the counter system and is much better than goons at everything.
I honestly don't care about semantics but a special unit is a unit which has its own balanced counter system. The brs counter system is simply not balanced.

"Broken" means it breaks the counter system. There is no counterplay to it because it already beats that which is supposed to counter it.

"Overpowered" simply means that it is strong enough that the effort of countering it is costly, difficult, and often hurts you more than it hurts them.

ffs, the counter system doesn't break. You make skirmishers against bow riders. They are supposed to counter it, and they will because the sioux eco is shit so they'll have 2/3rd of your army. It works.

What you're trying to say is that you think that Bow riders are so strong that Sioux only needs to make one unit, and you think that is unfun. That's your point, isn't it?

[Mitoe]

They were very close to breaking the counter system. There's a reason why going full Bow Rider was the thing to do on RE patch. I remember losing so many games to that.

[RefluxSemantic]

I'd agree with the point that bow riders are so strong that they're the only thing you'd have to make. That's why I only suggested maybe a +10 hp buff. I would like it if bow riders could be the core part of the sioux army, but not the only part. The style of running around, raiding, abusing your mobility to take good engagements and to outplay the opponent, I loved the shit out of that. The only lame part was that you could just make full bow riders, which made micro boring and it was a bit one dimensional. But I loved the core of that style and I think you could bring it back by partially reverting the bow rider nerf.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I would like to make the argument that it's fine for a unit to be slightly stronger than comparable units, if that serves a purpose of meaningfully defining a civ's playstyle in a way that is unique and interesting. But it's impossible to argue this when people keep throwing out "BuT iTs BrOkEn" which is impossible to discuss with because they don't provide a definition for broken and there is no universal definition for broken in this context. How can I then explain them it's not a counterargument to my point?

diarouga already answered this.

It's just that the unit breaks the counter system and is much better than goons at everything.
I honestly don't care about semantics but a special unit is a unit which has its own balanced counter system. The brs counter system is simply not balanced.

"Broken" means it breaks the counter system. There is no counterplay to it because it already beats that which is supposed to counter it.

"Overpowered" simply means that it is strong enough that the effort of countering it is costly, difficult, and often hurts you more than it hurts them.

ffs, the counter system doesn't break. You make skirmishers against bow riders. They are supposed to counter it, and they will because the sioux eco is shit so they'll have 2/3rd of your army. It works.

What you're trying to say is that you think that Bow riders are so strong that Sioux only needs to make one unit, and you think that is unfun. That's your point, isn't it?

Why do you assume that sioux gets outmassed ?
Their eco is worse than the nilla civ butbarely worse than the Iro/Aztec eco, and as far as I know, Iro and Aztecs aren't outmassed by nilla civs. Also against slow civs you can even take the TP line and stagecoach.
This argument is just wrong, in practice the nilla civs don't outmass Sioux in semi ff wars, even with their better eco.

[Mitoe]

Umeu was very good at this, and I lost a lot of games to him when he was active last year doing exactly that (BR + Axe and sometimes RR and nothing else really). Trust me when I say it doesn't need to be changed. @Lukas_L99 can back me up here.

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

I would like to make the argument that it's fine for a unit to be slightly stronger than comparable units, if that serves a purpose of meaningfully defining a civ's playstyle in a way that is unique and interesting. But it's impossible to argue this when people keep throwing out "BuT iTs BrOkEn" which is impossible to discuss with because they don't provide a definition for broken and there is no universal definition for broken in this context. How can I then explain them it's not a counterargument to my point?

diarouga already answered this.

It's just that the unit breaks the counter system and is much better than goons at everything.
I honestly don't care about semantics but a special unit is a unit which has its own balanced counter system. The brs counter system is simply not balanced.

"Broken" means it breaks the counter system. There is no counterplay to it because it already beats that which is supposed to counter it.

"Overpowered" simply means that it is strong enough that the effort of countering it is costly, difficult, and often hurts you more than it hurts them.

ffs, the counter system doesn't break. You make skirmishers against bow riders. They are supposed to counter it, and they will because the sioux eco is shit so they'll have 2/3rd of your army. It works.

What you're trying to say is that you think that Bow riders are so strong that Sioux only needs to make one unit, and you think that is unfun. That's your point, isn't it?

Why do you assume that sioux gets outmassed ?
Their eco is worse than the nilla civ butbarely worse than the Iro/Aztec eco, and as far as I know, Iro and Aztecs aren't outmassed by nilla civs. Also against slow civs you can even take the TP line and stagecoach.
This argument is just wrong, in practice the nilla civs don't outmass Sioux in semi ff wars, even with their better eco.

Are you assuming EP here? With teepees?

[[Armag] diarouga]

I'd agree with the point that bow riders are so strong that they're the only thing you'd have to make. That's why I only suggested maybe a +10 hp buff. I would like it if bow riders could be the core part of the sioux army, but not the only part. The style of running around, raiding, abusing your mobility to take good engagements and to outplay the opponent, I loved the shit out of that. The only lame part was that you could just make full bow riders, which made micro boring and it was a bit one dimensional. But I loved the core of that style and I think you could bring it back by partially reverting the bow rider nerf.

You wouldn't bring it back because of EP maps. Also people wall in competitive games nowadays.

[Lukas_L99]

Oh, ger and fre outmass pretty hard right now tbh

[RefluxSemantic]

Umeu was very good at this, and I lost a lot of games to him when he was active last year doing exactly that (BR + Axe and sometimes RR and nothing else really). Trust me when I say it doesn't need to be changed. @Lukas_L99 can back me up here.

So, then why do sioux need weird buffs? Can't they function with ever so slightly stronger bow riders (or axe riders, wouldn't really matter to me) and then revert to otherwise RE status? (though the cetan buffs were pretty nice).

[[Armag] diarouga]

Show hidden quotes

I would like to make the argument that it's fine for a unit to be slightly stronger than comparable units, if that serves a purpose of meaningfully defining a civ's playstyle in a way that is unique and interesting. But it's impossible to argue this when people keep throwing out "BuT iTs BrOkEn" which is impossible to discuss with because they don't provide a definition for broken and there is no universal definition for broken in this context. How can I then explain them it's not a counterargument to my point?

diarouga already answered this.

It's just that the unit breaks the counter system and is much better than goons at everything.
I honestly don't care about semantics but a special unit is a unit which has its own balanced counter system. The brs counter system is simply not balanced.

"Broken" means it breaks the counter system. There is no counterplay to it because it already beats that which is supposed to counter it.

"Overpowered" simply means that it is strong enough that the effort of countering it is costly, difficult, and often hurts you more than it hurts them.

ffs, the counter system doesn't break. You make skirmishers against bow riders. They are supposed to counter it, and they will because the sioux eco is shit so they'll have 2/3rd of your army. It works.

What you're trying to say is that you think that Bow riders are so strong that Sioux only needs to make one unit, and you think that is unfun. That's your point, isn't it?

Why do you assume that sioux gets outmassed ?
Their eco is worse than the nilla civ butbarely worse than the Iro/Aztec eco, and as far as I know, Iro and Aztecs aren't outmassed by nilla civs. Also against slow civs you can even take the TP line and stagecoach.
This argument is just wrong, in practice the nilla civs don't outmass Sioux in semi ff wars, even with their better eco.

Are you assuming EP here? With teepees?

No, even on the RE Sioux would get as many units till like 11-12min. After they'd get outmassed of course but definitely not 2/3rd of your army.

[Hazza54321]

please stop derailing the thread, was a great discussion

[Lukas_L99]

Umeu was very good at this, and I lost a lot of games to him when he was active last year doing exactly that (BR + Axe and sometimes RR and nothing else really). Trust me when I say it doesn't need to be changed. @Lukas_L99 can back me up here.

That was back in the 5v teepee aura stack times, right now sioux gets outmassed hard usually

[Mitoe]

Umeu was very good at this, and I lost a lot of games to him when he was active last year doing exactly that (BR + Axe and sometimes RR and nothing else really). Trust me when I say it doesn't need to be changed. @Lukas_L99 can back me up here.

So, then why do sioux need weird buffs? Can't they function with ever so slightly stronger bow riders (or axe riders, wouldn't really matter to me) and then revert to otherwise RE status? (though the cetan buffs were pretty nice).

That's mostly what they would be after these changes to be honest, but at least they would have some more options in doubling down on their eco if they need to vs turtle playstyles and stuff.

Axe Riders don't need buffs either though, they are also insanely cost effective.

[RefluxSemantic]

Like what I don't get is that there's this very desirable style of sioux (what umeu was apperantly good at), which exactly fits the Sioux identity and which seems really fun to me. Then we conclude that Sioux is not strong enough, but instead of looking at this style and making it slightly stronger, we give them eco changes (which are often pretty weird or ugly). Why not just buff the style that's perfect for the civ identity?

[Mitoe]

It is not fun, lol. Vs Umeu it was already strong enough that if I left my base then I would lose. Maybe it's fun to be Sioux, but it's equally as important to be fun to play against.

Listen I played a ton vs Sioux over the last year, and you don't need to buff their military. Their military is honestly incredible.

[gamevideo113]

Like what I don't get is that there's this very desirable style of sioux (what umeu was apperantly good at), which exactly fits the Sioux identity and which seems really fun to me. Then we conclude that Sioux is not strong enough, but instead of looking at this style and making it slightly stronger, we give them eco changes (which are often pretty weird or ugly). Why not just buff the style that's perfect for the civ identity?

As others already said, it's not that viable on EP anymore due to maps. Also not very fun to play against.

[Kaiserklein]

I would like to make the argument that it's fine for a unit to be slightly stronger than comparable units, if that serves a purpose of meaningfully defining a civ's playstyle in a way that is unique and interesting. But it's impossible to argue this when people keep throwing out "BuT iTs BrOkEn" which is impossible to discuss with because they don't provide a definition for broken and there is no universal definition for broken in this context. How can I then explain them it's not a counterargument to my point?

diarouga already answered this.

It's just that the unit breaks the counter system and is much better than goons at everything.
I honestly don't care about semantics but a special unit is a unit which has its own balanced counter system. The brs counter system is simply not balanced.

"Broken" means it breaks the counter system. There is no counterplay to it because it already beats that which is supposed to counter it.

"Overpowered" simply means that it is strong enough that the effort of countering it is costly, difficult, and often hurts you more than it hurts them.

ffs, the counter system doesn't break. You make skirmishers against bow riders. They are supposed to counter it, and they will because the sioux eco is shit so they'll have 2/3rd of your army. It works.

What you're trying to say is that you think that Bow riders are so strong that Sioux only needs to make one unit, and you think that is unfun. That's your point, isn't it?

Jesus christ, do we even play the same fucking game? Sioux don't have 2/3rd of your army lmao, they usually have a solid mass. You realize not having to pay for houses is a sort of eco right? And having strong unit shipments is also a thing?

Anyway who fucking cares? The actual point was that we don't want the civ to have to rely purely on one overpowered unit to win. It means they'll underperform vs civs that have the tools to beat it (e.g india with their strong infantry and fast zambs) but overperform vs civs that don't (e.g nerfed germany). We're not even discussing how strong sioux is or how strong the sioux army is overall. We're telling you the fucking unit does not need a buff because it's already strong enough. We've explained a billion times that it breaks the counter system (no, it's not normal that only 1 unit type barely counters it........). Now please, stop arguing against everyone just for the sake of it and accept you're wrong

I'm gonna use the argument of authority here, but if I was some dude and 4 top players disagreed with me, I'd be a little modest and MAYBE, who knows, consider I might be wrong?

[RefluxSemantic]

I'm going to use an argument of authority here. An entire time of professional game designers that worked on aoe3 for their jobs and made some of the most succesful games ever disagree with you. I'd be a little modest and MAYBE, who knows, consider I might be wrong?

[Kaiserklein]

Lmao, you mean these people who obviously fucked up the whole game, which is why we had to create our own patch? Are you fucking kidding me?

[[Armag] diarouga]

An entire time of professional game designers that worked on aoe3 for their jobs and made some of the most succesful games ever disagree with you.

Eh, when you create a civ you don't know how the civ is going to evolve.
Who could have predicted 10 years ago that the meta would evolve that way, with almost every civ building TPs and fighting for the TP line ? The designers couldn't predict it. Furthermore, if you assume that the game designers are always right, how do you explain that TAD was so fucked up early on ?

It's easy to criticize afterward, but building a civ from scratch is extremely hard.