Poll: Which Statements About Increased Upgrade Cost of Xbow and Arbalester Do You Agree with?
- This topic has 7 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The community is divided on the recent cost increases for the Xbow and Arb upgrades.
Some disagree with both, while others believe the increase for the Xbow upgrade was necessary but not for the Arb upgrade.
The changes have had an impact on the win rates of certain civs, especially those with Archer options.
The current meta favors Knights and Camels over Xbows/Arbs, which has reduced their usage for lower ELO players.
Despite being a strong unit, players fear counterattacks from Mangonels or Scorp/Skirm/Knight combos, making them less appealing than Cavalry.
Playing Cavalry requires a stronger food eco, but it leads to better long-term strategies and macro routines.
u/Azot-Spike you would make yours and Redditors’ life easier if you used [Google Forms](https://www.google.com/intl/pl/forms/about/)
The change was fine, because the power spike from crossbow and especially arbalest was too strong for the ridiculously low cost.
It definitely has something to with Mayans, they lost so much popularity.
The arb power spike can be insane especially when you add some skirms too.
Much better than all arbs as it is not as one dimensional.
Arbs do obliterate much, but if you don’t mix the comp, counter is easy.
I mean, elite skirms are pretty damn cheap and easy to get to lol
Overall, change was fine I guess.
I really wish they would improve infantry combat usage more than anything.
I love cavalry bc it is most effective, but I hate when units are left behind and stop serving a purpose.
For instance, who tf goes FAST-IMP CHAMPION ??? 11
Arb upgrade increse was too much.
Low winrates of archer civs are becuse indians/gurjaras destroy them.
Malay, bengalis and koreans had low winrates even before the nerf to xbow.
Chinese have low winrate ?
In low elo and even mid to high elo cav civs always had higher winartes.
Its just a lot easier to play knights than archers.
Well, it’s clear you have your opinion on the matter.
All this “poll” attempts to do is force others into accepting your narrative.
The nerf to archers was totally fine.
Don’t forget, there’s more infantry play now as well.
All we need now is a tiny cav nerf, and we’ll finally have rock paper scissors balance as it was originally intended!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
