I just played a game with 1.6, it seemed like nobody realised till the game launched due to the edited interface (if u hadnnt given up on CS id suggest to change it to 1.5 style so players dont run without losing points),after few crying and hesitating we decided to just go, apparently Zeit didnt know it was 42 civs since he insta resigned when he saw he got gurjars and game continued, i noticed persians was hell fast (they got buffed with speed and bonus vs buildings in real game), Zeit's team won 3v4.
In CBA DE, pers got nerfed after new patch, by reducing its pop to 40 units and lower his spawn timing, khmer same with 30 units, sarracens also got buffed in new patch and had to be nerfed by removing elite tech, and there are more examples. I would recommend to keep voobly civs balance stats and take the new civs balances of DE CBA.
CBA Hero and CBA are not the same but the feudal game is, only priorities change.
i havent played hero 1.6 enough to say how unbalanced the new civs are, but what i do can recommend is for you to talk to CBA Requiem map developers in aoe 2 DE, CBA died here but its really active in DE, im talking of 5 full rooms at same time at its worst hour, despite it not being ranked as CBA or CS, people found out about UNRANKED rank, allowing them to filter out the noobs and spot the best players, so dont be worried about balances being made by noobs (theyre even made by the players who beaten voobly dream team in their own game some months ago, in Dave's stream). heres the discord [You must login to view link]
When civs like Dravidians arrived, with no cavalry unit but elephant, elephants had to be enabled, since theyre too op they were limited to a certain population limit, depending on the civ, vietnamese gets 30, malay gets 60, dravidians get 100 (they dont get elite elephants and cant make anything else). This doesnt matter since hero is full tech.
Imagine the potential of the map if we reduced the chance of getting outcived from 50% to 25% by doubling the civs 11
Thanks for that. It’s actually nice to see some feedback.
I think if we need to touch the original civs we are better off splitting into 2 versions, which is not a problem now I know how to update the 1.6 scenarios within the map pack.
I’ll talk to Chris on how to move forward, perhaps we just update the 1.6 version and revert the 1.5 version back to v18 or which ever one cs wants then everyone can be happy for the most part.
Idk why a 1600 player like Jason changes the map without consulting top players, how do u give unlimited resources in cba hero randomly lmao, building 1 tile on water, and many other stupid changes, i hope chris reverts the changes and gives the role to someone who is at least 1800+ and consults the players before making changes, not like jason who doesnt understand the map and makes changes after a lose vs 1500 xd
So you have to be 18k+ to edit the map lol ok.
Feel free to takeover.
Well yeah, it makes perfect sense to me, civ balances should be determined by top players in high Elo rooms of CBA Hero, not even 18xx but 2ks, and this is the same in all games.
They would test the map for some days and start balancing civs. I mean, players already hesitate to learn 20 more civs because they will probably be noobs for some time versus people who already know the civs, and on top of that, you add many other things that changed the whole game.
It's gotta be balanced in high games with best players because "all welcome" and beginner rooms are very volatile; any team can win with any civ. On the other hand, in 2ks rooms, civs are played like they should,, with a minimum margin of error which is what tends to throw the games.
we'd be glad to help you with the new civs (we try them as they are) but for now, all the terrain (not graphics) and other stuff have to be undone, abrupt changes may creep out the bois.
Idk why a 1600 player like Jason changes the map without consulting top players, how do u give unlimited resources in cba hero randomly lmao, building 1 tile on water, and many other stupid changes, i hope chris reverts the changes and gives the role to someone who is at least 1800+ and consults the players before making changes, not like jason who doesnt understand the map and makes changes after a lose vs 1500 xd
Instead of complaining about Jason's rating being too low, you could also be grateful for all the work and effort he is doing for you guys for free. Calling his ideas and changes stupid is no way to thank him.
If those top players have a problem with the changes, they should post their constructive feedback here, so their ideas can be considered and potentially be implemented.
Well yeah, it makes perfect sense to me, civ balances should be determined by top players in high Elo rooms of CBA Hero, not even 18xx but 2ks, and this is the same in all games.
They would test the map for some days and start balancing civs. I mean, players already hesitate to learn 20 more civs because they will probably be noobs for some time versus people who already know the civs, and on top of that, you add many other things that changed the whole game.
It's gotta be balanced in high games with best players because "all welcome" and beginner rooms are very volatile; any team can win with any civ. On the other hand, in 2ks rooms, civs are played like they should,, with a minimum margin of error which is what tends to throw the games.
we'd be glad to help you with the new civs (we try them as they are) but for now, all the terrain (not graphics) and other stuff have to be undone, abrupt changes may creep out the bois.
We tried this for full six months in CS and we even offered free premium accounts for every game played on the new patch. Guess what? In total 31 games (in six months) were played and no feedback was shared. Instead we got tons of flame and hate posts at the forums and the usual trash talking in lobby chat.
On the other hand, in RM we play more than 10k games per month (!) on the new patch and we get plenty of feedback from the community to fix bugs, figure out OOS issues and other problems with the patch.
We tried this for full six months in CS and we even offered free premium accounts for every game played on the new patch. Guess what? In total 31 games (in six months) were played and no feedback was shared. Instead we got tons of flame and hate posts at the forums and the usual trash talking in lobby chat.
On the other hand, in RM we play more than 10k games per month (!) on the new patch and we get plenty of feedback from the community to fix bugs, figure out OOS issues and other problems with the patch.
There should be someone communicating and taking decisions with the community, civs should be added 1-2 at a time, let them be played a few months to find the right balance then add others, if 1.6 patch is good then there is no reason for games to be played on 1.5 patch, unless the pathing is way worse which is the main thing on cs.
There should be someone communicating and taking decisions with the community, civs should be added 1-2 at a time, let them be played a few months to find the right balance then add others, if 1.6 patch is good then there is no reason for games to be played on 1.5 patch, unless the pathing is way worse which is the main thing on cs.
We added the civs with every DLC, so exactly as you were suggesting, only two civs at a time. After four years and numerous DLCs we now have 42 civs in total. You guys just have to start playing and report the problems here... Jason will fix them. Issues with the patch will be fixed by the developer team. We never touched the original UP 1.5, so pathing is still the same.
We added the civs with every DLC, so exactly as you were suggesting, only two civs at a time. After four years and numerous DLCs we now have 42 civs in total. You guys just have to start playing and report the problems here... Jason will fix them. Issues with the patch will be fixed by the developer team. We never touched the original UP 1.5, so pathing is still the same.
Problem is that you did all that without them being played in the top level rooms, and most probably never knew or understood about the new civs (not blaming you).It will be hard for players to adapt to 15+ new civs at the same time and it will be a big unbalance.
If 1.6 patch is all right, just unrate 1.5 one no need for games to be played on the older patch lol same like they do in DE
No one is trying to abuse Jason for working on helping CS become better. We as a whole appreciate the fact that he's putting in his skill and service into the game and helping it improve. But our only suggestion is that he adds changes to the maps as consulted by well-experienced players and implements them after approval of at least 5-6 high level players.
Making changes is not so easy, for me I believe myself to be 2000+ and yet I think I'm not qualified enough to implement changes alone by myself. And let alone any one who's below this skill-level.
The very reason for this lies in the fact that one alone can make changes which are affected/caused by personal gameplay and outrage (thinking in such a way that if a certain change was implemented, I woulda won!). It does not work this way.
And highlighting earlier mistakes made:
-almost unlimited resources which need to be reversed
-ICE on the edges of the map needs to be added back
-aztecs don't receive squires, they keep the armor against archers and infantry
-the feature in some civilizations where you could delete a unit and get 4 more, example: saracen, mongol, byz, pers ETC. (some may call it a bug and it may actually be a bug but it's been adapted by the players of the community)
---there may be more, I am not writing them all down here.
I am myself willing to help Jason if he's having issues with time, not being able to put enough into it, I could assist if possible. The only request from our side is that he doesn't make changes without consultation.
I have a lot on my plate right now, but I will try and fix the things you mentioned over the weekend.
As for the DE balance I think we will need to touch the original civs, so it will be in a new map exclusive to 1.6 patch. We seriously need more feedback on this.
And I’m sorry for the inconvenience.
I have a lot on my plate right now, but I will try and fix the things you mentioned over the weekend.
As for the DE balance I think we will need to touch the original civs, so it will be in a new map exclusive to 1.6 patch. We seriously need more feedback on this.
And I’m sorry for the inconvenience.
Can you please join us at MPHQ? We have two new Member Pluses from CS who want to help us pushing Community Patch 1.6 RC in the Custom Scenario Lobby. You also got an email with the URL to that discussion at MPHQ sent to your EOR. Thanks.
Feel free to takeover.
In CBA DE, pers got nerfed after new patch, by reducing its pop to 40 units and lower his spawn timing, khmer same with 30 units, sarracens also got buffed in new patch and had to be nerfed by removing elite tech, and there are more examples. I would recommend to keep voobly civs balance stats and take the new civs balances of DE CBA.
CBA Hero and CBA are not the same but the feudal game is, only priorities change.
i havent played hero 1.6 enough to say how unbalanced the new civs are, but what i do can recommend is for you to talk to CBA Requiem map developers in aoe 2 DE, CBA died here but its really active in DE, im talking of 5 full rooms at same time at its worst hour, despite it not being ranked as CBA or CS, people found out about UNRANKED rank, allowing them to filter out the noobs and spot the best players, so dont be worried about balances being made by noobs (theyre even made by the players who beaten voobly dream team in their own game some months ago, in Dave's stream). heres the discord [You must login to view link]
When civs like Dravidians arrived, with no cavalry unit but elephant, elephants had to be enabled, since theyre too op they were limited to a certain population limit, depending on the civ, vietnamese gets 30, malay gets 60, dravidians get 100 (they dont get elite elephants and cant make anything else). This doesnt matter since hero is full tech.
Imagine the potential of the map if we reduced the chance of getting outcived from 50% to 25% by doubling the civs 11
I think if we need to touch the original civs we are better off splitting into 2 versions, which is not a problem now I know how to update the 1.6 scenarios within the map pack.
I’ll talk to Chris on how to move forward, perhaps we just update the 1.6 version and revert the 1.5 version back to v18 or which ever one cs wants then everyone can be happy for the most part.
Feel free to takeover.
Well yeah, it makes perfect sense to me, civ balances should be determined by top players in high Elo rooms of CBA Hero, not even 18xx but 2ks, and this is the same in all games.
They would test the map for some days and start balancing civs. I mean, players already hesitate to learn 20 more civs because they will probably be noobs for some time versus people who already know the civs, and on top of that, you add many other things that changed the whole game.
It's gotta be balanced in high games with best players because "all welcome" and beginner rooms are very volatile; any team can win with any civ. On the other hand, in 2ks rooms, civs are played like they should,, with a minimum margin of error which is what tends to throw the games.
we'd be glad to help you with the new civs (we try them as they are) but for now, all the terrain (not graphics) and other stuff have to be undone, abrupt changes may creep out the bois.
Instead of complaining about Jason's rating being too low, you could also be grateful for all the work and effort he is doing for you guys for free. Calling his ideas and changes stupid is no way to thank him.
If those top players have a problem with the changes, they should post their constructive feedback here, so their ideas can be considered and potentially be implemented.
They would test the map for some days and start balancing civs. I mean, players already hesitate to learn 20 more civs because they will probably be noobs for some time versus people who already know the civs, and on top of that, you add many other things that changed the whole game.
It's gotta be balanced in high games with best players because "all welcome" and beginner rooms are very volatile; any team can win with any civ. On the other hand, in 2ks rooms, civs are played like they should,, with a minimum margin of error which is what tends to throw the games.
we'd be glad to help you with the new civs (we try them as they are) but for now, all the terrain (not graphics) and other stuff have to be undone, abrupt changes may creep out the bois.
On the other hand, in RM we play more than 10k games per month (!) on the new patch and we get plenty of feedback from the community to fix bugs, figure out OOS issues and other problems with the patch.
On the other hand, in RM we play more than 10k games per month (!) on the new patch and we get plenty of feedback from the community to fix bugs, figure out OOS issues and other problems with the patch.
There should be someone communicating and taking decisions with the community, civs should be added 1-2 at a time, let them be played a few months to find the right balance then add others, if 1.6 patch is good then there is no reason for games to be played on 1.5 patch, unless the pathing is way worse which is the main thing on cs.
We added the civs with every DLC, so exactly as you were suggesting, only two civs at a time. After four years and numerous DLCs we now have 42 civs in total. You guys just have to start playing and report the problems here... Jason will fix them. Issues with the patch will be fixed by the developer team. We never touched the original UP 1.5, so pathing is still the same.
If 1.6 patch is all right, just unrate 1.5 one no need for games to be played on the older patch lol same like they do in DE
Making changes is not so easy, for me I believe myself to be 2000+ and yet I think I'm not qualified enough to implement changes alone by myself. And let alone any one who's below this skill-level.
The very reason for this lies in the fact that one alone can make changes which are affected/caused by personal gameplay and outrage (thinking in such a way that if a certain change was implemented, I woulda won!). It does not work this way.
And highlighting earlier mistakes made:
-almost unlimited resources which need to be reversed
-ICE on the edges of the map needs to be added back
-aztecs don't receive squires, they keep the armor against archers and infantry
-the feature in some civilizations where you could delete a unit and get 4 more, example: saracen, mongol, byz, pers ETC. (some may call it a bug and it may actually be a bug but it's been adapted by the players of the community)
---there may be more, I am not writing them all down here.
I am myself willing to help Jason if he's having issues with time, not being able to put enough into it, I could assist if possible. The only request from our side is that he doesn't make changes without consultation.
Regards
Ahmed
As for the DE balance I think we will need to touch the original civs, so it will be in a new map exclusive to 1.6 patch. We seriously need more feedback on this.
And I’m sorry for the inconvenience.
As for the DE balance I think we will need to touch the original civs, so it will be in a new map exclusive to 1.6 patch. We seriously need more feedback on this.
And I’m sorry for the inconvenience.
Apparently there was an unofficial v32 I was not aware of, so we jump to v33.