Balancing Revolution Options for European Civs

[[Armag] diarouga]

Revolt is broken for sure ye.

[Jotunir]

Revolt is broken for sure ye.

Yes it is, it should be fixed.

[n0el]

Pls don't give more than ZERO option to revolt because this stuff shouldn't exist in rts games. Revolt are only for casual players. I think this is the most "broken" (in term of design) stuff of aoe (all aoe included).

It’s an all in play and it should exist as an option so long as it’s punishable.

[Riotcoke]

16 cm is also an insane shipment btw, seeing as it's 1600f for units that are basically 10 goons.

[chronique]

It’s an all in play and it should exist as an option so long as it’s punishable.

Its not just "all in", when you all in you need macroing, here you litteraly obliterete 50% of the game.

[n0el]

It’s an all in play and it should exist as an option so long as it’s punishable.

Its not just "all in", when you all in you need macroing, here you litteraly obliterete 50% of the game.

you have to macro to get to revolt. pulling off a good revolt is higher skill than doing a spain FF all in for example.

[chronique]

you have to macro to get to revolt. pulling off a good revolt is higher skill than doing a spain FF all in for example.

1) Not realy. A good revolt is not harder than a good ff all in (we comparison with the same superlatif)
2) I mean when you all in you need macro at the same time, after your revolt, not realy.

[iNcog]

you have to macro to get to revolt. pulling off a good revolt is higher skill than doing a spain FF all in for example.

1) Not realy. A good revolt is not harder than a good ff all in (we comparison with the same superlatif)
2) I mean when you all in you need macro at the same time, after your revolt, not realy.

When I was playing a lot of spain, I tried to revolt a few times. I just couldn't get to come together like godbrot does. Doing a spanish FF is pretty straightfoward, though does rely on good fundamentals.

playing wonky play styles is easier said than done

[[Armag] diarouga]

It’s an all in play and it should exist as an option so long as it’s punishable.

Its not just "all in", when you all in you need macroing, here you litteraly obliterete 50% of the game.

you have to macro to get to revolt. pulling off a good revolt is higher skill than doing a spain FF all in for example.

Not at all. To execute a Spain ff all in, you need to train units while microing (which isn't a big deal at high level, but at pr35-, people get housed and have a poor food/gold vill distribution), and you need to control a 3-4 groups army.

When you revolt, you don't have to macro at all, and you only need to "micro" the easiest unit composition in the game : musk/huss with faster musks.

You need "some skill" to do a revolt (like defending, making the right decisions like send a fort etc) but once you're revolted, you can just a click and go afk.

[Jaeger]

Honestly the imperial hussar revolution is probably too good, and all the others are way too bad. Adjusting revolutions somehow isn't necessarily a bad idea, just need to figure out how best to do it. It needs to be strong enough to be a reasonable all-in, but still bad enough that it's beatable with the right adaptations.

Isn't the huss revolt beatable with the right adaptions?

[Jaeger]

I think it's okay that only 2 civs can really revolt properly. It's probably going to get old real fast when you give the revolt option to a bunch of other civs.

I think, on the contrary, it will add strategic variety to every civ (as long as it's weak enough so that not every civ does it like 1/4 of the time for example).

[Jaeger]

Technically, Dutch and Portugal can do okay with those imperial tupi and other natives (of course I've used it from time to time) but frankly, if revolution is going to be viable it should be changed completely. It's a boring one dimensional strategy that you do an all in for and AoE3 frankly needs less of that, not more of it.

Like Diarouga says, the whole thing would become impossible to predict and when things become impossible to predict the game comes down to the equivalent of rock/paper/scissors. Predict correctly you win, fail and you lose. For example, if Spain for instance got imperial hussars or imperial outlaws equivalent (as their other choice Mexico), that would get extremely problematic.

Even as a guy who has a strong preference to make the non viable stuff viable, there's a lot to focus on before this. Unlike a lot of the other stuff, if this is gotten wrong, it would be immensely unhealthy for the game due to the current 'all in' nature of it. A rework of the mechanic entirely? So its a legitimate late game trade off between that or imperial age (i.e short term gain vs. long term return), that could be potentially interesting. I doubt however I could win over people in the short term of this and there's other things I would try first. Obviously natives, but outlaws, mercenaries, underused units, unused consulate options. I like multicultural stuff so that's my general bias/preference.

I agree that it's kindda boring if you rush revolt from the start, but I think it's really interesting if one guy is losing in the lategame, and attempts revolt as a last ditch effort. To this end, I think revolt should be enabled only after 20 minutes, but make it stronger. Perhaps make the CM stronger to reward having many vills.

[n0el]

Show hidden quotes

It’s an all in play and it should exist as an option so long as it’s punishable.

Its not just "all in", when you all in you need macroing, here you litteraly obliterete 50% of the game.

you have to macro to get to revolt. pulling off a good revolt is higher skill than doing a spain FF all in for example.

Not at all. To execute a Spain ff all in, you need to train units while microing (which isn't a big deal at high level, but at pr35-, people get housed and have a poor food/gold vill distribution), and you need to control a 3-4 groups army.

When you revolt, you don't have to macro at all, and you only need to "micro" the easiest unit composition in the game : musk/huss with faster musks.

You need "some skill" to do a revolt (like defending, making the right decisions like send a fort etc) but once you're revolted, you can just a click and go afk.

Nah, at worst it takes even skill but at PR 33- a Spain all in is easier to succeed at.

[Astaroth]

Yeah, I don't see the need to change revolt. I don't think I've ever even revolted in a proper game and don't enjoy playing against it, but I dislike the attitude of nerfing things that are not OP, just because some people dislike them.

Thats a very bad, subjective and also risky approach to balancing a game. EP should focus on balancing things that are too weak or too strong with regards to overall balance and maybe buffing unviable optioms to make the game more diverse and interesting.

Removing options that are not OP or making them less viable is just not a good choice.

It's not a good thing if you can basically do the same greedy semi FF every game without scouting and still be okay with good micro, no matter what the opponent does. Instead, strategy choice, counter builds etc should play a role. If someone just plays super greedy or does one strat without scouting, then it is a good thing if there are all-in counters to that, such as revolt.

Sadly, EP often goes in the opposite direction: if a playstyle deviates from the popular meta, it must be nerfed, even if it isn't OP.

[chronique]

Yeah, I don't see the need to change revolt. I don't think I've ever even revolted in a proper game and don't enjoy playing against it, but I dislike the attitude of nerfing things that are not OP, just because some people dislike them.

I can't be more disagree with that.

If something is balance but not fun to play against, its definitly a good arg to remove it. Now if i am the only guy which want remove revolt (or nerf to the ground), it's just no gona happend and i can live with that. But i will continue to milit against because i hate play vs that and i think its broken in term of design.

Also, maybe i think that because i played a ton of game against rohbro, and peaple underestimate how strong revolt can be.

[Peachrocks]

Yeah, I don't see the need to change revolt. I don't think I've ever even revolted in a proper game and don't enjoy playing against it, but I dislike the attitude of nerfing things that are not OP, just because some people dislike them.

I can't be more disagree with that.

If something is balance but not fun to play against, its definitly a good arg to remove it. Now if i am the only guy which want remove revolt (or nerf to the ground), it's just no gona happend and i can live with that. But i will continue to milit against because i hate play vs that and i think its broken in term of design.

Also, maybe i think that because i played a ton of game against rohbro, and peaple underestimate how strong revolt can be.

It depends on whether it can be reworked. Also really, so much of the game is non viable right now removing more of it or nerfing more of it into the ground is not ideal. As it is, there is a real 'bot' culture among many players who really hate when you don't play to their bot meta even if they win. It made playing the game really a bucket load of no fun for me because I love doing silly things, yet if I can't even play water as a civ that doesn't traditionally go water, it's just pointless.

I agree revolt is... not very good design right now and buffing to make its options as good as Imperial Hussar will lead to nothing good. However, arguing in favour of basically straight up deleting it? Not so much. Better to think of ways it can be more fun to play with and against. However even that is difficult because of the culture among some members of the community.

[chronique]

As it is, there is a real 'bot' culture among many players who really hate when you don't play to their bot meta even if they win.

I don't know if its true but you can be sure, if you know how i play, i am not realy 'bot meta' player

[Jaeger]

What about making revolt cheaper and/or stronger, but enabling only after 20 minutes? I feel like that's the place for revolt; when you're in the lategame but loosing, you can use it as a last ditch effort.

[Peachrocks]

As it is, there is a real 'bot' culture among many players who really hate when you don't play to their bot meta even if they win.

I don't know if its true but you can be sure, if you know how i play, i am not realy 'bot meta' player

Of course, never meant to imply you were. I more meant that reworking revolution to something that isn’t all in nonsense might meet resistance.

[chronique]

Of course, never meant to imply you were. I more meant that reworking revolution to something that isn’t all in nonsense might meet resistance.

No probleme! I will let other players trying to balance that, and be happy or not in regard of the result .