Lower the Strength of All Civilizations With a Win Rate Above Fifty-One Percent
- This topic has 43 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Once again, people are calling for certain civilizations to be weakened, even though they don’t have a particularly high win rate on any map.
This has been happening every day and it’s becoming too much.
The game’s balance is satisfactory as it is, so these requests are unnecessary.
I am kind of a noob (~1100 ELO) but I agree with you.
In AOE2 most of the CIVs dont have drastic changes from other CIVs and are fairly balanced.
In AOE3 I would say there are some issues haha
Shows how friendly this community is.
This level of complaining is so mild.
I don’t even want to imagine the state of r/dota2 if there were heroes with a 60% wr.
Get your point though just saying it could be so unimaginably much worse.
I was legit shocked how positive aoe2 is when I played my first games online.
Tbh people who cry for nerfs are bad at the game and don’t want to make a big effort to get better.
IMO this is true most of the times for most games.
I have seen it a lot in shooters as well.
Nerfing every civ above a 51% winrate is a bit overboard I agree.
However I still think Portuguese do need a nerf.
Found the guy who only plays meta civs
1.
People aren’t asking for literally every civ with a positive win rate to be nerfed, they’re asking for poles, Portuguese, gurjaras and hindustanis to be nerfed, not Britons and burgundians and they’re not asking for the entire balance of the game to be reworked.
2.
Complaint posts like this don’t work or add to any discussion.
3.
Portuguese and poles definitely have extremely high win rates on arena, poles have been called a top arena civ and Portuguese can castle drop even better now, in 1300+ poles are 1# with a 59% win rate and porto is 2# has a 56% win rate
4.
Have you ever been castle dropped by Portuguese?
Have you ever played vs poles and be 1000 down on score despite not being raided?
Have you ever played with or against any of these civs?
5.
Shrivamsha riders cost nothing, are faster than every unit and can’t take damage from projectiles.
6.
Posts about nerfing aren’t everywhere, they haven’t taken over this sub.
60% is an insane threshold.
The balance must ideally be in the 48-52% range.
Since there are far too many civs, something like 46-54% might be acceptable.
But that’s the limit.
I agree with the sentiment, but don’t use these clickbaity titles to argue the opposite.
Poles do have a 60% win rate on Arena.
We just need more frequent balance changes.
Stagnant metas will always make people bored, and bored people will try to invent things by themselves, annoying us on internet forums
The only nerf I want is for the Shrivamsha Riders to get axed
I’d rather want a few weaker Civs to get buffed such as Bengalis and Dravidians to get some useful buffs.
Even Malay perhaps and etc.
While many people may just say there’s a different way to play them, it doesn’t justify their lower win rates and buffing them may also change the dynamics against many other civs
I’m pretty new but from my research, those are all civs that are fairly beginner friendly.
The definitive edition recently came out on gamepass for free (where I got it) so maybe all the people complaining are new-ish players.
Franks have been the civ to beat on Arabia for years now, which is why they’re brought up so often.
They don’t really need their 15% faster foraging, they have free bloodlines, farm upgrades, and cheaper castles.
On the other hand, I’m not sure if the foraging would be enough of a nerf.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
