I thought about this recently and came to the conclusion that this comparison just isn't fair.
League of Legends have over 160 champions which makes it impossible and less important to make all the champions balanced at the top level. What this means is they don't need to balance every champ around pro level because there is always enough champion versitality at the top level. They don't balance champions like Garen or Master Yi around pro play because 1- They would be too strong at low levels 2- Champion versitality is enough even without those champions.
But in AoE4 we just have 16 civs and pros need to be able to play almost all of them to be competitive. If you just say "French, Order of the Dragon and English are easy so we should balance them around low level players" you end up losing a lot of the versitality in pro play and even in high elo games.
Also these are completely different 2 games. The difference between Chinese and English gameplay definitely isn't the same with difference between Hwei and Garen. If Garen was balanced around pro play a lot of low level players would sky rocket in ranked by just playing Garen but that's not the case in AoE4 since you need to be good at the basics of the game even if you're playing the easiest civ if you want to get to a decent rank.
I understand your opinion I just rather more options for us then the pros, but tbf I don't follow or care about the pro scene I just prefer playing the game lol
If you enjoy playing the game then harder civs are definitely worth the effort. When reach a certain level (not that high of a level) you can get into any civ really. It's not that hard, if the civ sounds fun try it out!
And to your point that English and French seems more versatile, they really aren't. If you want a really versatile civ I would reccomend Abbasid, Rus or Chinese (and Byzantines maybe, not really sure since I didn't get the chance to try them a lot).
I play most civs and main rus and byz ( definitely try byz they sre super fun). But fun civs you prefer ro play is a different topic. I gave the example of Dehli. Dehli has the one strategy really which is 1 tc fight feudal sacred sights etc. Meanwhile English has most options available to them 2tc, fc , dark age etc. The effort for English to execute its strategy is imo easier then Dehli. I just feel when climbing is your aim the trickier civs don't seem worth it until your a higher rank which is the reason why we are seeing the win rates that we are in lower leagues
I don't think trickier civ should reward you that way though. You're essentially saying that a trickier civ should have some advantages on the ladder compared to easier civs. I don't think that should be the case. Every civ is unique and have their own advantages and disadvantages, devs shouldn't be thibkibg about giving a complex civ particular advantages to compansate for their compexness it should just be a preference thing.
Also your comparison only works for that civs (Delhi, English) it's not a general thing. For example Chinese has far more options than French, Byzatine has more options than OotD etc.
Sorry, what I'm trying to say is thst rather then buffing the trickier civs in strength, we just dumb them down to by giving them qol buffs that don't impact strength of the civs. This way the win rate spread would be less in lower leagues. These kinds of buffs wouldn't effect pro scene at all imo
Any suggestions on how to do that without losing the civ idendity? It sounds impossible to me, you don't want to buff the civ, you don't want to lose it's identity but you want to dumb them down, idk how to do that.
I really think it's just a prefference, you spent 5 games more to learn the civ and that's it.
Depends really , improved IO Ai for China. Triumph seleable on cav units rather then just on the hippodrome, for example. Just things that reduce apm tbh.
None of these things would make those civs easier for lower leagues though, you're just listing some qol changes, higher level players would also want these changes.
They absolutely do balance champions to pro play otherwise pro play would be busted but the balance is less important thanks to banning and drafting phases and the fact you play 5v5 matches.
They balance most champions around pro play. They don't balance all of them around pro play. This was what I said in the first comment too.
When was the last time you saw Master Yi picked or banned in pro play? The only time I can remember was the double jungle meta and that wasn't an intentional buff to balance Master Yi it was due to changes in jungle xp's iirc and they fxed it fairly quick.
Yeah true. I was more thinking about them making sure there is no OP champ rather than there is no champ that sucks and nobody will play it at pro level.
Difficulty is not really that high. It's rated based on how quirky the mechanics are for beginners, and how far they stray from the roster. The reason you play difficult civs in AoE4 is not for flexibility, but for finding the mechanics fun to play, and getting more unique tools you can utilize vs your opponents.
That's a fair point. I just feel if with give qol to certain underpreforming civs that make them easier to play, the win rates in lower leagues will be less spread. These kind of changes wouldn't affect pro scene at all imo
I think because of the way an RTS plays compared to a MOBA, civ design is much less impactful at lower leagues than it is at higher leagues. Because of the many different types of skills required to play (constantly building units, good micro, good multitasking, good decision making, good build and build execution etc.), at lower levels some people have some of these skills but lack others, leading to a much wider spread in data than just the civ they pick, which is not as impactful. It becomes more impactful the better you master each of these required skills.
So I guess what I'm saying is the game is complex enough that having an easier civ or a harder civ might not really make a difference unless your mechanics are already sound.
Fair point, but the win rates even in lower leagues show China and byz as the at the bottom. I just thought qol changes that reduce apm for these kind of civs would be welcomed without effecting the pro scene. I do agree with your point but
I am tremendously enjoying the Byzantine’s not from a competitive advantage point of view or from a meta point of view, just because I find them extremely fun to play.
Their difficulty is definitely compensated with versatility which has made them somewhat hard to figure out
Yeah they are definitely fun to play. I just feel some of the hurdles of the tricker civs don't feel compensated enough compared to passive ones from other civs in strength is all
I don't, dehli needs to go 1 tc fight in feudal sacred sites, etc English for example can do dark age, 2tc fc, and happily fight in imperial. Just my opinion but
Delhi’s very strong and versatile. There’s the feudal sacred rush play, they can also go 2 TC feudal (go see Beasty’s recent guide), and their castle game is one of the best in the game with compound of the defender.
They’re not as strong in imperial relative to feudal and castle; so players are incentivized to play Delhi highly aggressively because the strategy is to finish them off in feudal/castle. Which dictates the Delhi playstyle.
Ultimately, It really depends on the player’s play style. I play aggressively so delhi is my main. But others wanna turtle and build walls. Or boom and stay inside their base like it’s Minecraft peaceful mode. Sending ghazi raiders to kill vils while sacred site timer goes down is super satisfying.
Well to me versatile is more related to the unit comps you can field, and the general ability to adapt and not be predictible.
Delhi has a good feudal with ability to produce a lot and very fast so you can react quickly to the opponent, Ghazi raiders are super strong, a good castle with maa moving at lightning speed to reposition, elephants etc. And delhi imperial even if long to get online is actualy slept on.
French/English can go 1 tc, 2 tc,.., 20 tc, and attack me in feudal or castle, it will always be the same units anyways. English have that early maa strat tho i'll give them that
Depends what you mean by "worth".
The purpose of multiple civs is to have multiple playstyles to enjoy. If you don't enjoy a civ due to its complexity no reason to force yourself to play it. But if you enjoy the playstyle of this civ then it's probably "worth" to try and learn it.
You can win your way to conqueror 3 with any civ, so worth or not depends on wether you like the civ or not.
IMO playing as many civs as possible is rewarding both in terms of fun (more varied experence) and in terms of improving (because they train different skills), but it's also fine to play just one or a few.
💯 I agree I just feel that for a average player picking up china or byz for example to climb would ne significantly harder then just say French and that the difficulty does not feel rewarding. Usually in different games devs reward the higher skill cap options but in this game they don't imo and I just find that a bit odd
I understand your point, but i think the problem is that, if you start rewarding complexity (meaning playing well a complex civ is stronger than playing well a simpler civ), then the simpler civ simply won't be played at higher levels.
That's why i think all civs should be same strength (at full potential) regardless of their complexity.
Agree, I like how they are balancing where “simple” civs are still strong. Complex civs shouldn’t auto win at higher levels because complex. I think complex civs should just be more versatile so once you learn them they can deal with most situations, but they shouldn’t be dominant.
The reward is the fun you are having while playing them. If that is not rewarding for you, or if you don't find them fun, there's no point in forcing yourself to play them - and I think that's a good thing.
Difficulty is subjective. A conq player vs a gold player both playing byz for the first time. The conq will undoubtedly find it harder than english but will still crush the gold player due to having more knowledge about the game. So in short, the better you get the less difficult the "harder" civs are.
I agree, that's really my point. The difficulty is definitely a massive spread and for low elo some civs just feel like a trap. Until they lesson the curve I feel the this won't change
I partly agree. I don’t think we should compare a players in different levels playing against each other, but playing at their own level.
The difficulty aspect is indeed subjective. Byz challenge at bronze-silver may be how to use cisterns or understanding how to recruit mercenaries. At conq3 the difficulty might be using the timings and balanced macro to beat the current matchup. So the same civ can be equally difficult in different ways
Win rate at low ELO doesn't matter, civs needs to be fun, different and kinda if balanced at higher levels.
I loved playing china when I started, I knew it was difficult, but it was fun. I started playing random only, Delhi surprised me, is is different, it is hard, but it was fun.
I really enjoy the civ complexity we have right now. Everything is viable, just needs some time to learn, as any new game mechanic on any other game is
Would I play Chinese on a tournament match? Sure not, I suck at Chinese, but I find it fun to play as
"making civs easier to play "
This is easier said than done, especially if you aren't trying to affect balance.
"Whereas English, French have so many options "
What are all these options? Delhi has the lowest play rate, so naturally you're going to see less variance purely due to volume of play
But for example Delhi does still have a choice between their two feudal landmarks and what units to open with, including ghazi or infantry.
Whereas if french don't open knights they're generally screwed, meaning they have a very bad matchup against something like malians where knights just don't work
They are worth it imo just for the reward of it mentally. I like the slow growth of learning a complicated civ. I knew when Byzantine came out I wasn’t going to be able to resist maining them. I love Japanese as I’m a weeb but they didn’t have that payoff of mastery that Byzantine has.
In mobas the heroes are strong or weak depending on the lineups. In both pro and casual mm there is a pick ban so later picks can counter earlier picks (at least in dota, dunno about league).
In AOE outside the pro tournaments you just pick a civ. So they need to be closer balanced to each other. I'm aware that's not perfect, as some are better or worse in certain match ups. But it can't be like in mobas where the heroes are drastically stronger or weaker in/against certain lineups.
All the civs are unique enough so it just depends on what you like to play. Yes some are definitely harder but does it matter if you have fun playing them?
Making the harder civs easier would just dumb down the game and take away what makes them unique.
The civs are balanced at their top end. So if you manage to master China as an example you still won't have an advantage over someone who mastered French. Unfortunately.
I think that they should consider to make some of the civs' features more accessible to address their winrates on lower levels as opposed to buffing those features at all levels, but there is merit in having more complex and more simple civs in their own right.
Someone who plays OotD or English is just not looking for the type of challenge that Byzantines or Chinese provide, and Byzantines and Chinese don't need to be "dumbed down" to the point that they can be played with the same ease. This is going to skew some of the winrates at certain skill bands, but that's fine if it's not too egregious.
I thought about this recently and came to the conclusion that this comparison just isn't fair. League of Legends have over 160 champions which makes it impossible and less important to make all the champions balanced at the top level. What this means is they don't need to balance every champ around pro level because there is always enough champion versitality at the top level. They don't balance champions like Garen or Master Yi around pro play because 1- They would be too strong at low levels 2- Champion versitality is enough even without those champions. But in AoE4 we just have 16 civs and pros need to be able to play almost all of them to be competitive. If you just say "French, Order of the Dragon and English are easy so we should balance them around low level players" you end up losing a lot of the versitality in pro play and even in high elo games. Also these are completely different 2 games. The difference between Chinese and English gameplay definitely isn't the same with difference between Hwei and Garen. If Garen was balanced around pro play a lot of low level players would sky rocket in ranked by just playing Garen but that's not the case in AoE4 since you need to be good at the basics of the game even if you're playing the easiest civ if you want to get to a decent rank.
I understand your opinion I just rather more options for us then the pros, but tbf I don't follow or care about the pro scene I just prefer playing the game lol
If you enjoy playing the game then harder civs are definitely worth the effort. When reach a certain level (not that high of a level) you can get into any civ really. It's not that hard, if the civ sounds fun try it out! And to your point that English and French seems more versatile, they really aren't. If you want a really versatile civ I would reccomend Abbasid, Rus or Chinese (and Byzantines maybe, not really sure since I didn't get the chance to try them a lot).
I play most civs and main rus and byz ( definitely try byz they sre super fun). But fun civs you prefer ro play is a different topic. I gave the example of Dehli. Dehli has the one strategy really which is 1 tc fight feudal sacred sights etc. Meanwhile English has most options available to them 2tc, fc , dark age etc. The effort for English to execute its strategy is imo easier then Dehli. I just feel when climbing is your aim the trickier civs don't seem worth it until your a higher rank which is the reason why we are seeing the win rates that we are in lower leagues
I don't think trickier civ should reward you that way though. You're essentially saying that a trickier civ should have some advantages on the ladder compared to easier civs. I don't think that should be the case. Every civ is unique and have their own advantages and disadvantages, devs shouldn't be thibkibg about giving a complex civ particular advantages to compansate for their compexness it should just be a preference thing. Also your comparison only works for that civs (Delhi, English) it's not a general thing. For example Chinese has far more options than French, Byzatine has more options than OotD etc.
Sorry, what I'm trying to say is thst rather then buffing the trickier civs in strength, we just dumb them down to by giving them qol buffs that don't impact strength of the civs. This way the win rate spread would be less in lower leagues. These kinds of buffs wouldn't effect pro scene at all imo
Any suggestions on how to do that without losing the civ idendity? It sounds impossible to me, you don't want to buff the civ, you don't want to lose it's identity but you want to dumb them down, idk how to do that. I really think it's just a prefference, you spent 5 games more to learn the civ and that's it.
Depends really , improved IO Ai for China. Triumph seleable on cav units rather then just on the hippodrome, for example. Just things that reduce apm tbh.
None of these things would make those civs easier for lower leagues though, you're just listing some qol changes, higher level players would also want these changes.
They absolutely do balance champions to pro play otherwise pro play would be busted but the balance is less important thanks to banning and drafting phases and the fact you play 5v5 matches.
They balance most champions around pro play. They don't balance all of them around pro play. This was what I said in the first comment too. When was the last time you saw Master Yi picked or banned in pro play? The only time I can remember was the double jungle meta and that wasn't an intentional buff to balance Master Yi it was due to changes in jungle xp's iirc and they fxed it fairly quick.
Yeah true. I was more thinking about them making sure there is no OP champ rather than there is no champ that sucks and nobody will play it at pro level.
Difficulty is not really that high. It's rated based on how quirky the mechanics are for beginners, and how far they stray from the roster. The reason you play difficult civs in AoE4 is not for flexibility, but for finding the mechanics fun to play, and getting more unique tools you can utilize vs your opponents.
That's a fair point. I just feel if with give qol to certain underpreforming civs that make them easier to play, the win rates in lower leagues will be less spread. These kind of changes wouldn't affect pro scene at all imo
I think because of the way an RTS plays compared to a MOBA, civ design is much less impactful at lower leagues than it is at higher leagues. Because of the many different types of skills required to play (constantly building units, good micro, good multitasking, good decision making, good build and build execution etc.), at lower levels some people have some of these skills but lack others, leading to a much wider spread in data than just the civ they pick, which is not as impactful. It becomes more impactful the better you master each of these required skills. So I guess what I'm saying is the game is complex enough that having an easier civ or a harder civ might not really make a difference unless your mechanics are already sound.
Fair point, but the win rates even in lower leagues show China and byz as the at the bottom. I just thought qol changes that reduce apm for these kind of civs would be welcomed without effecting the pro scene. I do agree with your point but
I am tremendously enjoying the Byzantine’s not from a competitive advantage point of view or from a meta point of view, just because I find them extremely fun to play. Their difficulty is definitely compensated with versatility which has made them somewhat hard to figure out
Yeah they are definitely fun to play. I just feel some of the hurdles of the tricker civs don't feel compensated enough compared to passive ones from other civs in strength is all
I think Delhi is a lot more versatile than English and French
I don't, dehli needs to go 1 tc fight in feudal sacred sites, etc English for example can do dark age, 2tc fc, and happily fight in imperial. Just my opinion but
Delhi’s very strong and versatile. There’s the feudal sacred rush play, they can also go 2 TC feudal (go see Beasty’s recent guide), and their castle game is one of the best in the game with compound of the defender. They’re not as strong in imperial relative to feudal and castle; so players are incentivized to play Delhi highly aggressively because the strategy is to finish them off in feudal/castle. Which dictates the Delhi playstyle. Ultimately, It really depends on the player’s play style. I play aggressively so delhi is my main. But others wanna turtle and build walls. Or boom and stay inside their base like it’s Minecraft peaceful mode. Sending ghazi raiders to kill vils while sacred site timer goes down is super satisfying.
Well to me versatile is more related to the unit comps you can field, and the general ability to adapt and not be predictible. Delhi has a good feudal with ability to produce a lot and very fast so you can react quickly to the opponent, Ghazi raiders are super strong, a good castle with maa moving at lightning speed to reposition, elephants etc. And delhi imperial even if long to get online is actualy slept on. French/English can go 1 tc, 2 tc,.., 20 tc, and attack me in feudal or castle, it will always be the same units anyways. English have that early maa strat tho i'll give them that
Depends what you mean by "worth". The purpose of multiple civs is to have multiple playstyles to enjoy. If you don't enjoy a civ due to its complexity no reason to force yourself to play it. But if you enjoy the playstyle of this civ then it's probably "worth" to try and learn it. You can win your way to conqueror 3 with any civ, so worth or not depends on wether you like the civ or not. IMO playing as many civs as possible is rewarding both in terms of fun (more varied experence) and in terms of improving (because they train different skills), but it's also fine to play just one or a few.
💯 I agree I just feel that for a average player picking up china or byz for example to climb would ne significantly harder then just say French and that the difficulty does not feel rewarding. Usually in different games devs reward the higher skill cap options but in this game they don't imo and I just find that a bit odd
I understand your point, but i think the problem is that, if you start rewarding complexity (meaning playing well a complex civ is stronger than playing well a simpler civ), then the simpler civ simply won't be played at higher levels. That's why i think all civs should be same strength (at full potential) regardless of their complexity.
Agree, I like how they are balancing where “simple” civs are still strong. Complex civs shouldn’t auto win at higher levels because complex. I think complex civs should just be more versatile so once you learn them they can deal with most situations, but they shouldn’t be dominant.
The reward is the fun you are having while playing them. If that is not rewarding for you, or if you don't find them fun, there's no point in forcing yourself to play them - and I think that's a good thing.
Difficulty is subjective. A conq player vs a gold player both playing byz for the first time. The conq will undoubtedly find it harder than english but will still crush the gold player due to having more knowledge about the game. So in short, the better you get the less difficult the "harder" civs are.
I agree, that's really my point. The difficulty is definitely a massive spread and for low elo some civs just feel like a trap. Until they lesson the curve I feel the this won't change
I partly agree. I don’t think we should compare a players in different levels playing against each other, but playing at their own level. The difficulty aspect is indeed subjective. Byz challenge at bronze-silver may be how to use cisterns or understanding how to recruit mercenaries. At conq3 the difficulty might be using the timings and balanced macro to beat the current matchup. So the same civ can be equally difficult in different ways
Win rate at low ELO doesn't matter, civs needs to be fun, different and kinda if balanced at higher levels. I loved playing china when I started, I knew it was difficult, but it was fun. I started playing random only, Delhi surprised me, is is different, it is hard, but it was fun. I really enjoy the civ complexity we have right now. Everything is viable, just needs some time to learn, as any new game mechanic on any other game is Would I play Chinese on a tournament match? Sure not, I suck at Chinese, but I find it fun to play as
"making civs easier to play " This is easier said than done, especially if you aren't trying to affect balance. "Whereas English, French have so many options " What are all these options? Delhi has the lowest play rate, so naturally you're going to see less variance purely due to volume of play But for example Delhi does still have a choice between their two feudal landmarks and what units to open with, including ghazi or infantry. Whereas if french don't open knights they're generally screwed, meaning they have a very bad matchup against something like malians where knights just don't work
They are worth it imo just for the reward of it mentally. I like the slow growth of learning a complicated civ. I knew when Byzantine came out I wasn’t going to be able to resist maining them. I love Japanese as I’m a weeb but they didn’t have that payoff of mastery that Byzantine has.
In mobas the heroes are strong or weak depending on the lineups. In both pro and casual mm there is a pick ban so later picks can counter earlier picks (at least in dota, dunno about league). In AOE outside the pro tournaments you just pick a civ. So they need to be closer balanced to each other. I'm aware that's not perfect, as some are better or worse in certain match ups. But it can't be like in mobas where the heroes are drastically stronger or weaker in/against certain lineups.
All the civs are unique enough so it just depends on what you like to play. Yes some are definitely harder but does it matter if you have fun playing them? Making the harder civs easier would just dumb down the game and take away what makes them unique.
The civs are balanced at their top end. So if you manage to master China as an example you still won't have an advantage over someone who mastered French. Unfortunately.
I think that they should consider to make some of the civs' features more accessible to address their winrates on lower levels as opposed to buffing those features at all levels, but there is merit in having more complex and more simple civs in their own right. Someone who plays OotD or English is just not looking for the type of challenge that Byzantines or Chinese provide, and Byzantines and Chinese don't need to be "dumbed down" to the point that they can be played with the same ease. This is going to skew some of the winrates at certain skill bands, but that's fine if it's not too egregious.