samwise12 wrote:Inca don't have a super rush, but they are probably a little strong overall. The overall balance of the other civs is pretty good though.
INCA don't have a super rush?¿? 11 pikermen units in ur face in 3:40 minutes ??? OK XDDDDDDD
samwise12 wrote:Inca don't have a super rush, but they are probably a little strong overall. The overall balance of the other civs is pretty good though.
That is a super all in 10 vill rush (with zero eco to fall back on), which wouldn't work vs top level players who know how to call mm, fight with vills and use TC fire correcty. Spain is also above average, and considered a tier 1 civ by alot of high level players.88_Baron_Rojo_88 wrote:I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol
If it does not work against top players, but is enough to take down low level players 9 times out of 10, it still is a balance issue.samwise12 wrote:That is a super all in 10 vill rush (with zero eco to fall back on), which wouldn't work vs top level players who know how to call mm, fight with vills and use TC fire correcty. Spain is also above average, and considered a tier 1 civ by alot of high level players.88_Baron_Rojo_88 wrote:I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol
How does it take down low level player though ? Just focus the chasqui, and then kill the pikes with TC fire + vills in melee. Also if you see his age up time just save resources for minutem.Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:If it does not work against top players, but is enough to take down low level players 9 times out of 10, it still is a balance issue.samwise12 wrote:That is a super all in 10 vill rush (with zero eco to fall back on), which wouldn't work vs top level players who know how to call mm, fight with vills and use TC fire correcty. Spain is also above average, and considered a tier 1 civ by alot of high level players.88_Baron_Rojo_88 wrote:I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol
Yeah you're right, I can see how it could be a balance issue at lower levels. Best thing to do is post on the offical forums so the developers of the game see it, and can make balance changes accordingly. There was always going to be teething issues with the new civs.Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:If it does not work against top players, but is enough to take down low level players 9 times out of 10, it still is a balance issue.samwise12 wrote:That is a super all in 10 vill rush (with zero eco to fall back on), which wouldn't work vs top level players who know how to call mm, fight with vills and use TC fire correcty. Spain is also above average, and considered a tier 1 civ by alot of high level players.88_Baron_Rojo_88 wrote:I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol
What is a low level player in this scenario?Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:If it does not work against top players, but is enough to take down low level players 9 times out of 10, it still is a balance issue.samwise12 wrote:That is a super all in 10 vill rush (with zero eco to fall back on), which wouldn't work vs top level players who know how to call mm, fight with vills and use TC fire correcty. Spain is also above average, and considered a tier 1 civ by alot of high level players.88_Baron_Rojo_88 wrote:I thought the pros already knew this? Now I understand why Spain is never balanced lol
Challenged_Macro wrote: Respect Mussolini guys,if hes triggered there is always a reason.
Mussolini wrote: I hope corona gets you, your family and all your fuckin relatives as you fuckin deserve it for being cocky
First of all, tier 1 and top 1 are not the same thing. Anyone that has met me on the ladder knows that I play alot of Spain, I also didn't say that i think Spain is tier 1, I said other top players say this. Personally i'd probably rate Spain somewhere in tier 2. Spanish gold is very good, and they have many more viable builds than just an all in ff. I'll happily play some Spain games next time i'm streaming. http://www.twitch.tv/samwise12_88_Baron_Rojo_88 wrote:tier 1 yeah , try against sweden whit spain or better ask hazza, u are saying all the time spain is top 1 but i see yours streams every day and don't play spain in any game because u know is the same FF the same strategy since 15 years ago , one FF one try to push whit a little army u win or GG (logistician is useless and Spanish gold is not enough and u know it ) . TC doesn't matter , in 3:40 u can destroy the rest of buildings and run, come back whit chimu and raid and force to enemy no eco , doesn't matter if he are playing against IA 3:40 minutes "all in" is broken.
The Inca economy does not stop at minute 4, the one that stops is the enemy's, it is a slow agony until the GG. It's like playing with Iroquois in the RE and there you do agree that it was unbalanced, right? .
you are the top1 so I don't say anything else, you are right
Ye, he has no follow up. 10 pikes and 6 chimus with no wh, so you just need to hold that push (and TC fire is honestly enough), and then you're ahead.Kawapasaka wrote:I lost my carelessly placed Agra to that Inca rush today, sent trickle first in colonial instead of units, and it was still one of the easiest wins of the day. I don't think it's that good.
I really doubt you'd need vill punching to win vs someone of a similar level executing the rush. Just having enough for minutemen should probably do it.Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...
They are some kind of souped-up Japan, IMO. I'm average (~1000 elo, master sergeant) and play a range of civs (Lakota, China, Japan, Russia, France) and consistently win 50% of my 1v1 ladder games.samwise12 wrote:Sweden offends the core values of an RTS game
Imagine flamming arrows with 20 range?kevthegooner wrote: My balance advice: eliminate (or hugely nerf) Commerce Age leather cannons. Imagine if Japan had flaming arrows in age ii?
I don't quite get this argument. When something is "strong" at a certain skill level (which let's say here is an all in Inca rush), it forces you to grow a skill to continue your development. In this instance, you'll probably have to get better at defending. I remember when I was hardstuck at PR14, all I did was dual rax Jan rush and click on the TC for a 50/50 chance of winning. Was the game imbalanced because I couldn't win with an all in Jan rush every game? It was a strategic/skill deficiency that I was creating, not the game. The reason a lot of high level players tend to advocate for balance at a high level is because once you can't grow any more as a player to improve your "personal balance", is when balance truly matters. I don't want to be elitest, and certainly things that make the game uncompetitive at a wide range of skill levels should be evaluated, but as players we should use these as teachable moments to build skills we didn't have previously.Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...
Some players may not have the time to grind up their skills, or may have a skill cap that is lower than others. Yet they still deserve a playable game, i.e. a somewhat balanced game at their skill level. Top level balance should probably have priority, but nobody is going to enjoy a game were the first 100 games are spent playing only one civ because that's the only civ viable at your current skill cap.Zutazuta wrote:I don't quite get this argument. When something is "strong" at a certain skill level (which let's say here is an all in Inca rush), it forces you to grow a skill to continue your development. In this instance, you'll probably have to get better at defending. I remember when I was hardstuck at PR14, all I did was dual rax Jan rush and click on the TC for a 50/50 chance of winning. Was the game imbalanced because I couldn't win with an all in Jan rush every game? It was a strategic/skill deficiency that I was creating, not the game. The reason a lot of high level players tend to advocate for balance at a high level is because once you can't grow any more as a player to improve your "personal balance", is when balance truly matters. I don't want to be elitest, and certainly things that make the game uncompetitive at a wide range of skill levels should be evaluated, but as players we should use these as teachable moments to build skills we didn't have previously.Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...
All civs are viable at lower levels. You really just need to learn a few build orders and execute them well most of the time.Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:Some players may not have the time to grind up their skills, or may have a skill cap that is lower than others. Yet they still deserve a playable game, i.e. a somewhat balanced game at their skill level. Top level balance should probably have priority, but nobody is going to enjoy a game were the first 100 games are spent playing only one civ because that's the only civ viable at your current skill cap.Zutazuta wrote:I don't quite get this argument. When something is "strong" at a certain skill level (which let's say here is an all in Inca rush), it forces you to grow a skill to continue your development. In this instance, you'll probably have to get better at defending. I remember when I was hardstuck at PR14, all I did was dual rax Jan rush and click on the TC for a 50/50 chance of winning. Was the game imbalanced because I couldn't win with an all in Jan rush every game? It was a strategic/skill deficiency that I was creating, not the game. The reason a lot of high level players tend to advocate for balance at a high level is because once you can't grow any more as a player to improve your "personal balance", is when balance truly matters. I don't want to be elitest, and certainly things that make the game uncompetitive at a wide range of skill levels should be evaluated, but as players we should use these as teachable moments to build skills we didn't have previously.Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...
I think @vividlyplain hits the nail on the head. Skill cap isn't necessarily a problem at the lower levels. It's more a knowledge and macro problem than anything else. When you start hitting an actual (mechanical) skill cap - which does exist - then I agree, you should definitely consider balance for those levels. In my example above with my Jan rush, my solution to unlocking a higher level was discovering that making an artillery foundry and abus was far more critical than any mechanical skill I gained (let's face it, my mechanics still aren't great!). In the instance you provided with Inca, a realization that "hey, maybe every time I face Inca, I should gather 150c - even better if I can get it from treasures, so I'll prioritize those" is far more important than being able to micro vils in out of the TC and grouping them together to punch individual spears. I'd wager that optimizations like that are missing on both sides at lower skill levels (i.e. cover moding pikes, moving the shipment unit in and out of the TC fire range effectively, etc.).Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:Some players may not have the time to grind up their skills, or may have a skill cap that is lower than others. Yet they still deserve a playable game, i.e. a somewhat balanced game at their skill level. Top level balance should probably have priority, but nobody is going to enjoy a game were the first 100 games are spent playing only one civ because that's the only civ viable at your current skill cap.Zutazuta wrote:I don't quite get this argument. When something is "strong" at a certain skill level (which let's say here is an all in Inca rush), it forces you to grow a skill to continue your development. In this instance, you'll probably have to get better at defending. I remember when I was hardstuck at PR14, all I did was dual rax Jan rush and click on the TC for a 50/50 chance of winning. Was the game imbalanced because I couldn't win with an all in Jan rush every game? It was a strategic/skill deficiency that I was creating, not the game. The reason a lot of high level players tend to advocate for balance at a high level is because once you can't grow any more as a player to improve your "personal balance", is when balance truly matters. I don't want to be elitest, and certainly things that make the game uncompetitive at a wide range of skill levels should be evaluated, but as players we should use these as teachable moments to build skills we didn't have previously.Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:Honestly I've not even played DE so I have no clue if I could defend it (I'm a master sergeant). I only wanted to point out that balance also count at low level and that "vill defence" is certainly not a skill most ms have...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?
Which streams do you wish to see listed?