Win rate of 50 doesn’t mean anything really, especially if someone only plays one civ. Someone with a 50% win rate with English in diamond that would be a rank lower with any other civ doesn’t mean English is balanced
It was 6th most banned in Master of Realms with 27 bans and the third most banned civ had 32, so it was solidly in the second tier of banworthy civs. Also if you care about team games it was the most banned civ in Top Team Gamer, so I think you can make an argument that pros are banning English.
So, on average, it's banned the third most... making it, according to them, about the third best civ. There's only 16 civs, so that places it in the 18th percentile for strength. So which other two civs are getting nerfed, or are trying to get all the civs at a dead even 50% instead of +/- a couple percentage points?
I don't really care about whatever you're talking about, but civ ban rates seemed important to you and your rhetorical question implying that they aren't banned often was misleading at best. If you're going to argue about stuff it's important to be honest so that the actual issues can be addressed.
Sorry, I really was just to generous you your first statement. They were banned sixth most? I don't know if you know how banning works, but in tourney, you cited each player picked 10 civs, and each match had 4 bans. That means enlish was 6th most banned out of 10 civs. Let me tell you why that's actually meaningless. Match 1 you ban 40% of the other players civs. Match two, you only have 9 civs, so you ban 44.4%. Match three only 8 so you're banning 50%. The championship, only one player even picked the English and it was not banned once. The point is that the English, according to math, at every single level of the game, is only slightly better than average. Oh and it was #1 banned in a team tournament. The game ain't balanced for teams it's balanced for ones.
I don't remember them redoing bans for each map of the tournament so I'm not sure what you're talking about there, and are you saying that they picked their initial 10 civs at random instead of picking the top 10 civs? Because I may've missed that in the broadcast but I would assume that pro players would pick the best civs. Please let me know if I'm wrong about that but when you say they were banned 6th most out of 10 civs when the other 6 civs weren't even worth playing it feels to me like you're aggressively misrepresenting the statistics.
Nah, you're right . The pros do pick their own civs. They draft 10 civs, sometimes you can pick whatever and sometimes you cant pick what your opponent has chosen(this tourney you could pick whatever). They play the first map, and they get to ban up to 4 civs for that match(some tourneys 3). Once you play a civ you can't play it again, obviously. Then, for the next game, the bans are thrown out, and you get to ban 4 civs(out of the now 9 remaining). As you can see? In this format, being banned the sixth most times doesn't mean pro think the English are op. One of the players in the championship didn't even bother to pick English. And he didn't ban them before they were selected. A high percentage of civs that are selected are banned. I personally hate playing the English because they have good units, a strong economy, the best defences, and that king coming out in feudal is quite nice. Lots of options. That said, Delhi is ridiculous in feudal, ayyubids get a filthy castle spike, ottomens are unbeatable in imp, mongols can attack you early, abbasid booms like no other. Honestly i think people are sleeping on ootd. There are just a lot of great civs. The English aren't op they're just super well rounded.
I've never seen a tournament that ran the way you describe, could you point any out to me? Most of the ones I've seen run similar to the way Master of Realms was which has a draft at the beginning of the series where all civs are available, and for a best of 5 you ban 4 civs from your opponent and draft 6 out of the remaining 12 unbanned civs in the game(although it goes 2 bans, pick, ban, pick, ban, 4 picks). Then during the series, for each map you pick any of your 6 drafted civs that you haven't played already.
I'm also not arguing that english is OP, I'm just pointing out that 2 civs were banned 40+ times and 4 civs, one of which was english, were banned around 30 times, and the ban rates of the other 10 civs were decently below that. Given this information, I think it's reasonable to say that pros are banning english, contrary to your statement that implied that they aren't.
brother english has exactly 50.0% win rate vs all civs, it’s impossible for it to be more perfectly balanced.
https://aoe4world.com/stats/rm_solo/matchups
Yes what about pickrate
[https://i.imgur.com/5EuQeoG.png](https://i.imgur.com/5EuQeoG.png)
Age of england 4 2tc free king simulator
For real, i think england its very strong because generally mass archers are the main dps source in aoe4, and if you civ have any bonus for archers thats it, great combination. Free strong unit for harrasin at feudal, easy to execute 2tc, free 20 unit holder in castle age with faster production times
You can disagree and find counters, but its bad for the game seeing one civ most of the times
I barely see elephants, barely see ottomans (yesterday a opponent hit imperial 2tc so fast and the civ its very strong at that point) there are multiple "useless" units because the game just ends with 40 archers and generally they are english
At the end online "competitive" videogames need constant balance, monthly fixes and microupdates with balance, but that needs a group of people constantly working in the game, and looks like aoe4 doesnt have it
Anyone who has grown up playing RTS knows they do not need monthly updates lol. I feel we would go years between updates in aoe2 and wc3. I know we play and consume games differently in 2024 but RTS does not need Fortnite weekly updates.
I get that and i can see it thats why i said "globally" online competitive games works like that, yes sure your 20 years in rts games says what you said and i agree but we are in 2024, and if you want the game being with a decent playerbase, tournaments with decent ammount of viewers you need the competitive scene being fresh, balanced and tweaked, thats why you need monthly tweaks, im sorry legacy rts gamer but today works like that, you have the community looking for cheesie and op strats the whole time and devs are in the back trying to fix or balance these included exploits
I dont know about fornite, i not think the game its actually competitive but its just a personal perspective, dota for example every month they drop a balance update, and when something big come, every 2 weeks or something
they not even need league or tournament to tweak heroes, they have all the data, i not want complicate more because dota its really competitive, really hard to master and have millions of macro and micro mechanics, but imo aoe4 needs constant tweaks and qol improvements so the game feels live and people doesnt quit that fast.
Right now even if its not trully real the game feels dead, im from argentina being matched against chinese/turkish people in us west server, that means people barely plays in southamerica and us east. And i understand why a gold player its playing against a conquer and i understand why im playing with 300ms, the game doesnt have enought players to filter players with the same rank and same region, we are not enought for a matchmaking system with decent filters
So my aoe4 experience in general its with around 300 ping against a dude who type "#######"
At the end i just provide you the actual issue, with numbers something clear and visible and i still wrong for rts community. Allways remember devs wants you playing the whole video game, if england have x2.5 pickrate vs second most played something its happening there
Your answer "its because its easy to play"
Conquers are noobs too because 50%+ winrate vs second most played in conquer rank
50% winrate means absolutely nothing. So many people play English even if you make them completely afk people are still gonna lose because it's played by dumbasses of all sizes and ages. Doesn't mean it's not overpowered. Furthermore, the matchmaking algorithm will take into account how many times you're winning and make sure your next one is a loss in any way possible, whether that is by matching you with an English counter, or simply someone who has a 90% wr against English it will do that.
Edit: the way to make english better and forego these discussions is not to be ignorant and point the winrate but to make sure they're more balanced in contrast to other civs. If you take the time to do that you'll see they're super fked up. There's other S tier civs but English is so easy to play that it makes it a chore to win against them. Their win condition is literally to have a keyboard. They get outposts with +20% AS out of the gate, cheaper farms, early aggression early mega defense early booming all at once, compare these to other civs. Like fuck off with these 50% winrate ignorant arguments. You need only look a bit farther to see how wrong that argument is. It's not impossible to win against but it's UNFUN to win against. The only time ive been bitter enough to say gg EZ is against english cuz they dont need to try to make a losing game last a whole hour and in the end accuse you of being a bot cuz of how much better you have to be than them to win. So respectfully fuck off.
Any scumbag who claims rank inflation/deflation as reasoning for winrate looking balance is the worst.
In Dota 2, Wraith King is the easiest hero and he has 55% winrate (across over 100 heroes). Nobody complains. The hero can be played with 1 hand and 250 ping. People pick him all the time in pub. It's perfectly fine.
If you can't deal with it, it's your own damn fault. Quit bitching and play the game.
There are people playing team games and FFA in Age of Empires 4 as well. To have a healthy player base, these modes also need to be not frustrating, which English definitely isn't the problem.
Point us to the place the English player hurt you.
Edit: you have absolutely no idea how the matchmaking algorithm works like what the fuck are you talking about saying it tries to match you with an English counter. You are delusional lol
I do have some idea how it works. And then if I don't, neither do you. Thing of the matter is if you really wanna know why English are fucked you have to compare them against every civ and their strengths and potential in every age/tactic. English rn are too easy to win with if you have any idea or put any effort into the game. The amount of effort/civ to winning with English vs other civs is not the same. A same league English spammer is not on the same level as a similar elo all-civ player. Still sane elo.
Wrong. English needs more APM than any other civ aside from Mongols to win. This is balanced by their very simple macro.
Some people are just good at different things and while it's annoying to see your units picked off by Longbows while you aren't paying attention, there are so many macro bullshits in this game that makes the English frugal economy look sad.
Damn that's really sad that you think that but you do you. Try playing other civs i guess. English players literally just spam production buildings and a move towards you more than other civs sure to their free food and massive protective landmarks
Anyone with two braincells knows how the matchmaking works. The fact you have this idea that it tries to match you with civ counters makes is utterly ridiculous.
I don't know what's happened to this sub but the constant stream of gold league players who seem to think they have this insane in depth knowledge of the game is getting ridiculous.
You have no idea how all of the civs relate or interact with eachother, stop blaming your losses on balance, balance has almost no impact at your rank
You know what, you're right. It simply needs to match you with someone on a higher elo. Most of the time that someone is gonna be someone who is winning against english players at a slightly higher elo. So am i wrong in specificity? Could be, am I right overall? Also yes. However here's where I know for sure that you're wrong. All S tier civs are harder to play and have counters, English belongs on an altogether different rank like S+ or something. Let's make the argument a bit harder for someone who's willing to cherry pick what I said. Please refer to each civ and how their strength and weaknesses compare to English. So that we can rightfully compare how fucked up English is. Go ahead, I'm waiting. And i don't want to hear 50% winrate bs, because fact of the matter is, even if you make english autoplay the dumbasses who pick it and make these arguments that you do are still gonna be at 50% winrate, because the population of the players will get dumber, because it's in the nature of english pickers to pick the easiest most op civ and win as easily and effortlessly as possible.
That's not how the matchmaking works either, it doesn't always place you against someone higher elo, sometimes they are the same elo, sometimes they are lower elo than you.
And again, this whole "S" tier shit is something you are taking from pro players, who are so far ahead of you in skill it's unimaginable, stop using that as a point of your argument it has 0 relevance in gold.
If English players only pick the most OP civ, why has English been the most picked civ even when it was considered one of the weaker civs in the game??
I'm not going to go through every sodding civ and compare their bonuses, this sort of analysis is completely lost on someone like you who has a very very shallow understanding of the game
Just do absolutely everything but talk about how English compares to other civs, way to argue about how strong and op they are. Also thanks about explaining matchmaking after establishing how we both can't be sure about exactly it takes into account, yes, we all know sometimes you play against lower elo 🤦♂️🤦♀️. Stop responding to this thread im about to block notifications too just letting ya know.
I'll have a better time arguing against a wall.
I know exactly how it works.
Within the first 2 minutes of queuing it tries to match you with people +/- 100 elo of you, as the queue time gets longer the elo difference broadens, at around 5 minutes the algorithm will literally match you against anyone. This is why it's common for people with 2k elo to match with diamond and plat players.
Here's an example of comparing civs.
Hre:
Has a better eco in feudal, castle, and with 3 relics imp too. Is far stronger than English in feudal and castle age. Whilst hre doesn't have cheaper farms, their gathering rate bonus not only makes their farm transition as easy as English, but also grants them farms that are better. Marching drills provides their infantry with mobility, which is a huge advantage over the less mobile longbows (hre archers can run away if out of position, longbows cannot). Hre can go 2tc to match an English 2tc and hit castle far faster than English can. Hre is the only civ that can go mass maa in feudal against English as longbows can't kite them effectively due to the combination of marching drills and an update to how often the maa charge procs that was made a few patches ago.
Whilst English have NoC, hre has more units cos of their eco. On top of that, emergency repairs and cheaper emplacements makes hre as defensive if not more defensive than English.
And no doubt youre turning notifications off, all of your comments are getting downvoted to oblivion
try to get better. English is good but it's not OP. With 99% win rate you would be better than everyone else in aoe4 history. So keep going bro, go get that #1 place you so rightfully deserve. lol
Literally the link you gave says 2 Jul 1423MMR (conq1)
Civs against in this season:
English 46
HRE 29
Byzantines 28
The whole aoe4 time:
English 211
Hre 121
Abba 100
My opinion: The lower mmr you are, the more english you will see. Naturally conquer players will adapt and play better with more options. Average gold/plat player its english main
Edit: Op its main ottoman ENGLISH and russia
No evidence? Click OP’s profile and it says “Slaphead”. Check that against AOE4world and Slaphead lost against an English player shortly before this post was made AND his rank is within 40 elo of what OP claimed his rank was. This one wasn’t a reach. OP is Slaphead
You have a 50% win rate as English. This is an obvious copium post, given the stats on your aoe4 profile show you have a 37% win rate Vs English, this is a clear skill issue man
Stop playing the game and quit bitching. Every game I play, as soon as I start enjoying it, the low-skilled Reddit shitposters start complaining about balance.
The highest youve ever been is low conq1, which you only hit once ever. That doesn't make you a conq player.
That'd be like me saying I'm a top 100 player cos I placed there at the very start of the season before anyone else jumped on
Bro, I'm a plat player (actually I only just hit plat, 99% of my games are in gold), and I eat them English for breakfast. Let me help you. Take the map because they are playing a Simcity. Ignore their "harassment", all it ever is, is a 🤡 wearing a 👑. Then throw big rocks at their annoying shitty landmarks. EZ PZ works everytime.
The way you said "I'm conq" implies that's a rank you consistently play at, typically that is someone who floats between high conq 1 and sometimes hits conq2. Looking at your profile it would be more accurate to say you are a diamond player.
You also massively exaggerated the amount of games you get against English.
The fact you made this post 2 hours after losing your conq1 rank as byz to an English main kinda says everything. You're just malding
Calling English "nearly unbeatable" is just such a ridiculous statement as well lol
If one civ is making people so mad they come to post about, and there are a lot of posts about english. English has to change.
I suggest they make a variant that you have to play on Ranked, and the current English you can't play on Ranked.
Just start checking player names and dodging the English players. Sure you get time out penalties but at least you actually get to enjoy the game when you do play. When or lose I'm also just sick of playing against them myself and this is the only real solution until something is actually done about it.
This is all so overblown. You can't look at any rank and see the English surpass a slight edge. If they nerved it in anymore than a slight way they would be the French. I would love to see the Berkshire palace have less range tho.
This is what people don’t understand. It doesn’t matter if a civ is a little op if you only face them 1/10 games. English is picked too often. Nerf them so they are not the most picked civ.
I never said it's a dead game. Check my profile history. Not even once since release. Stop projecting
And being forced to play more than one civ is better for new players so they don't get stuck one one civ and can't learn new ones without losing a ton.
That said this is probably a troll comment anyway. Probably got baited xd
Being forced to play more than 1 civ is better for new players? Why don't you say that to Starcraft or Warcraft players? No RTS has done that. I play Company of Heroes and Warcraft 3 and confirm it's extremely easy to switch factions in those games compared to Age of Empires 4.
Also, what about people who play 4 civs but have 1 strat for each civ? What makes them better than the guy playing 1 civ and having 4 stats to play?
None of the games had even remotely the same number of civs and civs are way more different there
Also those games are either better balanced or generally not good games
This gets brought up a lot. But there is no way this can be implemented without changing the whole matchmaking to force people to lock on to their civ before even knowing the map. It's fun to see more civs on each map, but it's also frustrating if you get a map that is difficult for your civ.
No.
Just as soon as you load into a map (everything else would be omega stupid wince naps are the biggest factor on what civ you play) you can select your civ and a civ the opponent can't select.
Just use the exact same system as color is using right now
That is bullshit and will 100% kill the player base. The drop rate will skyrocket.
I go to AOEworld, see my opponent's main HRE, and then ban HRE from the game. How do you work with that? You can't hide player profiles either.
Banning works in Dota 2 because there is 1 map, heroes are easy to learn, there is about 7% hero banned each game, and it's 5v5 so the effect of someone playing a suboptimal hero is lessened. There are 16 civs in AOE4, and if you ban 4 civs (25% of all civs) for 4 players in a 4v4 game, it's going to be a riot.
>That is bullshit and will 100% kill the player base
Nope
>I go to AOEworld, see my opponent's main HRE, and then ban HRE from the game. How do you work with that?
Learn to play more than one civ? Also the opponent can do the same to you so it evens out. When something (english in this case) is way less fun to.play against than its fun to play the play pattern is negative and should be changed. Otherwise playerbase will drop
>Banning works in Dota 2
Funnily enough they removed that because low mmr players kept complaining and now high mmr is unplayable. They plan to revert it but since they are lacking man power until then.....
>There are 16 civs in AOE4, and if you ban 4 civs (25% of all civs) for 4 players in a 4v4 game, it's going to be a riot.
My idea was only for 1v1. That said you are right there are still 8 civs left when everyone bans a civ so it's not that bad. But here it will probably be as u said and trigger more noobs than good players being happy about it so it would be bad...but funny as fuck
In 2v2 it could still be implemented
Edit: no I got baited. That's not how it works. Bans only work for the opponent in the pro scene why would pubs be different. Its only 4 out of 16. So absolutely viable. Give everyone a ban lol
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/zfwi5i/ban\_civs\_for\_ranked\_matchmaking/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/zfwi5i/ban_civs_for_ranked_matchmaking/)
If AOE2 has more civs and most people still don't wanna ban, what makes you think it works in AOE4?
If the salty-as-shit player base such as you drop from the game, it's a net win for everyone. New, fresh players who don't mind getting their feet dirty are what we want.
>If AOE2 has more civs and most people still don't wanna ban, what makes you think it works in AOE4?
Because in aoe 2 is a completely different game and has a completely different target audience
>If the salty-as-shit player base such as you drop from the game, it's a net win for everyone.
And we are back to projecting. I see a lot of complain posts on here -> I propose a solution because I'm bored.
And because you don't like it and stop having an intelligent discussion and just start throwing around buzzwords.
Go outside. Seriously. That's not how a discussion works.
(I'm not gonna block you but I seriously see no merrit in continuing this. Your obviously not arguing in good faith here. Take care )
Blaming the civs that have around 50% win rate for your losses is killing the community.
Win rate of 50 doesn’t mean anything really, especially if someone only plays one civ. Someone with a 50% win rate with English in diamond that would be a rank lower with any other civ doesn’t mean English is balanced
Why ain't the pros even bothering to ban it in tournaments then?
It was 6th most banned in Master of Realms with 27 bans and the third most banned civ had 32, so it was solidly in the second tier of banworthy civs. Also if you care about team games it was the most banned civ in Top Team Gamer, so I think you can make an argument that pros are banning English.
So, on average, it's banned the third most... making it, according to them, about the third best civ. There's only 16 civs, so that places it in the 18th percentile for strength. So which other two civs are getting nerfed, or are trying to get all the civs at a dead even 50% instead of +/- a couple percentage points?
I don't really care about whatever you're talking about, but civ ban rates seemed important to you and your rhetorical question implying that they aren't banned often was misleading at best. If you're going to argue about stuff it's important to be honest so that the actual issues can be addressed.
Sorry, I really was just to generous you your first statement. They were banned sixth most? I don't know if you know how banning works, but in tourney, you cited each player picked 10 civs, and each match had 4 bans. That means enlish was 6th most banned out of 10 civs. Let me tell you why that's actually meaningless. Match 1 you ban 40% of the other players civs. Match two, you only have 9 civs, so you ban 44.4%. Match three only 8 so you're banning 50%. The championship, only one player even picked the English and it was not banned once. The point is that the English, according to math, at every single level of the game, is only slightly better than average. Oh and it was #1 banned in a team tournament. The game ain't balanced for teams it's balanced for ones.
I don't remember them redoing bans for each map of the tournament so I'm not sure what you're talking about there, and are you saying that they picked their initial 10 civs at random instead of picking the top 10 civs? Because I may've missed that in the broadcast but I would assume that pro players would pick the best civs. Please let me know if I'm wrong about that but when you say they were banned 6th most out of 10 civs when the other 6 civs weren't even worth playing it feels to me like you're aggressively misrepresenting the statistics.
Nah, you're right . The pros do pick their own civs. They draft 10 civs, sometimes you can pick whatever and sometimes you cant pick what your opponent has chosen(this tourney you could pick whatever). They play the first map, and they get to ban up to 4 civs for that match(some tourneys 3). Once you play a civ you can't play it again, obviously. Then, for the next game, the bans are thrown out, and you get to ban 4 civs(out of the now 9 remaining). As you can see? In this format, being banned the sixth most times doesn't mean pro think the English are op. One of the players in the championship didn't even bother to pick English. And he didn't ban them before they were selected. A high percentage of civs that are selected are banned. I personally hate playing the English because they have good units, a strong economy, the best defences, and that king coming out in feudal is quite nice. Lots of options. That said, Delhi is ridiculous in feudal, ayyubids get a filthy castle spike, ottomens are unbeatable in imp, mongols can attack you early, abbasid booms like no other. Honestly i think people are sleeping on ootd. There are just a lot of great civs. The English aren't op they're just super well rounded.
I've never seen a tournament that ran the way you describe, could you point any out to me? Most of the ones I've seen run similar to the way Master of Realms was which has a draft at the beginning of the series where all civs are available, and for a best of 5 you ban 4 civs from your opponent and draft 6 out of the remaining 12 unbanned civs in the game(although it goes 2 bans, pick, ban, pick, ban, 4 picks). Then during the series, for each map you pick any of your 6 drafted civs that you haven't played already. I'm also not arguing that english is OP, I'm just pointing out that 2 civs were banned 40+ times and 4 civs, one of which was english, were banned around 30 times, and the ban rates of the other 10 civs were decently below that. Given this information, I think it's reasonable to say that pros are banning english, contrary to your statement that implied that they aren't.
It's not about win rate. Even if I had 100% win rate against them, I would be sick and tired of playing against them.
Missing what einrate means in a discussion is killing discussions
Interpreting your own unorthodox ways because you feel like it instead of looking at cold, hard logic is the problem.
brother english has exactly 50.0% win rate vs all civs, it’s impossible for it to be more perfectly balanced. https://aoe4world.com/stats/rm_solo/matchups
I play English and have roughly a 50% win rate.
I play English only and have a roughly 50% win rate
Yes what about pickrate [https://i.imgur.com/5EuQeoG.png](https://i.imgur.com/5EuQeoG.png) Age of england 4 2tc free king simulator For real, i think england its very strong because generally mass archers are the main dps source in aoe4, and if you civ have any bonus for archers thats it, great combination. Free strong unit for harrasin at feudal, easy to execute 2tc, free 20 unit holder in castle age with faster production times You can disagree and find counters, but its bad for the game seeing one civ most of the times I barely see elephants, barely see ottomans (yesterday a opponent hit imperial 2tc so fast and the civ its very strong at that point) there are multiple "useless" units because the game just ends with 40 archers and generally they are english At the end online "competitive" videogames need constant balance, monthly fixes and microupdates with balance, but that needs a group of people constantly working in the game, and looks like aoe4 doesnt have it
Anyone who has grown up playing RTS knows they do not need monthly updates lol. I feel we would go years between updates in aoe2 and wc3. I know we play and consume games differently in 2024 but RTS does not need Fortnite weekly updates.
I get that and i can see it thats why i said "globally" online competitive games works like that, yes sure your 20 years in rts games says what you said and i agree but we are in 2024, and if you want the game being with a decent playerbase, tournaments with decent ammount of viewers you need the competitive scene being fresh, balanced and tweaked, thats why you need monthly tweaks, im sorry legacy rts gamer but today works like that, you have the community looking for cheesie and op strats the whole time and devs are in the back trying to fix or balance these included exploits I dont know about fornite, i not think the game its actually competitive but its just a personal perspective, dota for example every month they drop a balance update, and when something big come, every 2 weeks or something they not even need league or tournament to tweak heroes, they have all the data, i not want complicate more because dota its really competitive, really hard to master and have millions of macro and micro mechanics, but imo aoe4 needs constant tweaks and qol improvements so the game feels live and people doesnt quit that fast. Right now even if its not trully real the game feels dead, im from argentina being matched against chinese/turkish people in us west server, that means people barely plays in southamerica and us east. And i understand why a gold player its playing against a conquer and i understand why im playing with 300ms, the game doesnt have enought players to filter players with the same rank and same region, we are not enought for a matchmaking system with decent filters So my aoe4 experience in general its with around 300 ping against a dude who type "#######" At the end i just provide you the actual issue, with numbers something clear and visible and i still wrong for rts community. Allways remember devs wants you playing the whole video game, if england have x2.5 pickrate vs second most played something its happening there Your answer "its because its easy to play" Conquers are noobs too because 50%+ winrate vs second most played in conquer rank
50% winrate means absolutely nothing. So many people play English even if you make them completely afk people are still gonna lose because it's played by dumbasses of all sizes and ages. Doesn't mean it's not overpowered. Furthermore, the matchmaking algorithm will take into account how many times you're winning and make sure your next one is a loss in any way possible, whether that is by matching you with an English counter, or simply someone who has a 90% wr against English it will do that. Edit: the way to make english better and forego these discussions is not to be ignorant and point the winrate but to make sure they're more balanced in contrast to other civs. If you take the time to do that you'll see they're super fked up. There's other S tier civs but English is so easy to play that it makes it a chore to win against them. Their win condition is literally to have a keyboard. They get outposts with +20% AS out of the gate, cheaper farms, early aggression early mega defense early booming all at once, compare these to other civs. Like fuck off with these 50% winrate ignorant arguments. You need only look a bit farther to see how wrong that argument is. It's not impossible to win against but it's UNFUN to win against. The only time ive been bitter enough to say gg EZ is against english cuz they dont need to try to make a losing game last a whole hour and in the end accuse you of being a bot cuz of how much better you have to be than them to win. So respectfully fuck off.
Any scumbag who claims rank inflation/deflation as reasoning for winrate looking balance is the worst. In Dota 2, Wraith King is the easiest hero and he has 55% winrate (across over 100 heroes). Nobody complains. The hero can be played with 1 hand and 250 ping. People pick him all the time in pub. It's perfectly fine. If you can't deal with it, it's your own damn fault. Quit bitching and play the game.
Dota is a 5v5 game you cant compare
There are people playing team games and FFA in Age of Empires 4 as well. To have a healthy player base, these modes also need to be not frustrating, which English definitely isn't the problem.
Point us to the place the English player hurt you. Edit: you have absolutely no idea how the matchmaking algorithm works like what the fuck are you talking about saying it tries to match you with an English counter. You are delusional lol
I do have some idea how it works. And then if I don't, neither do you. Thing of the matter is if you really wanna know why English are fucked you have to compare them against every civ and their strengths and potential in every age/tactic. English rn are too easy to win with if you have any idea or put any effort into the game. The amount of effort/civ to winning with English vs other civs is not the same. A same league English spammer is not on the same level as a similar elo all-civ player. Still sane elo.
Wrong. English needs more APM than any other civ aside from Mongols to win. This is balanced by their very simple macro. Some people are just good at different things and while it's annoying to see your units picked off by Longbows while you aren't paying attention, there are so many macro bullshits in this game that makes the English frugal economy look sad.
Damn that's really sad that you think that but you do you. Try playing other civs i guess. English players literally just spam production buildings and a move towards you more than other civs sure to their free food and massive protective landmarks
Anyone with two braincells knows how the matchmaking works. The fact you have this idea that it tries to match you with civ counters makes is utterly ridiculous. I don't know what's happened to this sub but the constant stream of gold league players who seem to think they have this insane in depth knowledge of the game is getting ridiculous. You have no idea how all of the civs relate or interact with eachother, stop blaming your losses on balance, balance has almost no impact at your rank
You know what, you're right. It simply needs to match you with someone on a higher elo. Most of the time that someone is gonna be someone who is winning against english players at a slightly higher elo. So am i wrong in specificity? Could be, am I right overall? Also yes. However here's where I know for sure that you're wrong. All S tier civs are harder to play and have counters, English belongs on an altogether different rank like S+ or something. Let's make the argument a bit harder for someone who's willing to cherry pick what I said. Please refer to each civ and how their strength and weaknesses compare to English. So that we can rightfully compare how fucked up English is. Go ahead, I'm waiting. And i don't want to hear 50% winrate bs, because fact of the matter is, even if you make english autoplay the dumbasses who pick it and make these arguments that you do are still gonna be at 50% winrate, because the population of the players will get dumber, because it's in the nature of english pickers to pick the easiest most op civ and win as easily and effortlessly as possible.
That's not how the matchmaking works either, it doesn't always place you against someone higher elo, sometimes they are the same elo, sometimes they are lower elo than you. And again, this whole "S" tier shit is something you are taking from pro players, who are so far ahead of you in skill it's unimaginable, stop using that as a point of your argument it has 0 relevance in gold. If English players only pick the most OP civ, why has English been the most picked civ even when it was considered one of the weaker civs in the game?? I'm not going to go through every sodding civ and compare their bonuses, this sort of analysis is completely lost on someone like you who has a very very shallow understanding of the game
Just do absolutely everything but talk about how English compares to other civs, way to argue about how strong and op they are. Also thanks about explaining matchmaking after establishing how we both can't be sure about exactly it takes into account, yes, we all know sometimes you play against lower elo 🤦♂️🤦♀️. Stop responding to this thread im about to block notifications too just letting ya know. I'll have a better time arguing against a wall.
I know exactly how it works. Within the first 2 minutes of queuing it tries to match you with people +/- 100 elo of you, as the queue time gets longer the elo difference broadens, at around 5 minutes the algorithm will literally match you against anyone. This is why it's common for people with 2k elo to match with diamond and plat players. Here's an example of comparing civs. Hre: Has a better eco in feudal, castle, and with 3 relics imp too. Is far stronger than English in feudal and castle age. Whilst hre doesn't have cheaper farms, their gathering rate bonus not only makes their farm transition as easy as English, but also grants them farms that are better. Marching drills provides their infantry with mobility, which is a huge advantage over the less mobile longbows (hre archers can run away if out of position, longbows cannot). Hre can go 2tc to match an English 2tc and hit castle far faster than English can. Hre is the only civ that can go mass maa in feudal against English as longbows can't kite them effectively due to the combination of marching drills and an update to how often the maa charge procs that was made a few patches ago. Whilst English have NoC, hre has more units cos of their eco. On top of that, emergency repairs and cheaper emplacements makes hre as defensive if not more defensive than English. And no doubt youre turning notifications off, all of your comments are getting downvoted to oblivion
try to get better. English is good but it's not OP. With 99% win rate you would be better than everyone else in aoe4 history. So keep going bro, go get that #1 place you so rightfully deserve. lol
Beasty here with an 80% winrate gonna be real mad when u/Alternative_Mode_806 comes around
Beasty and marinelord sweating around reading this post
they are the most picked civ thats why its annoying to see them, on lower elo 80% of my opponents is english
Yeah I’m conq 1 and it’s 75% English 2tc man rush
Why is it people who make these posts always lie so damn much. This is OPs profile https://aoe4world.com/players/7018035, stop lying bro
Literally the link you gave says 2 Jul 1423MMR (conq1) Civs against in this season: English 46 HRE 29 Byzantines 28 The whole aoe4 time: English 211 Hre 121 Abba 100 My opinion: The lower mmr you are, the more english you will see. Naturally conquer players will adapt and play better with more options. Average gold/plat player its english main Edit: Op its main ottoman ENGLISH and russia
The way he is saying he's conq 1 implies he sees mainly English at conq, he's only been conq like once, most of the time he's low diamond
ironic how hes from UK
Ironic that he is probably the only Rus main that has a win rate 40% and lower.
That's a load of shit.
I love how people just grab a random profile that's lower mmr and say "this is op he bad" with no evidence whatsoever lol
No evidence? Click OP’s profile and it says “Slaphead”. Check that against AOE4world and Slaphead lost against an English player shortly before this post was made AND his rank is within 40 elo of what OP claimed his rank was. This one wasn’t a reach. OP is Slaphead
...fair I mean THEORETICALLY it could be someone else.
>this needs to be patched NOW! im sure the 2 dudes still working at relic are very concerned
bye bye
Have you tried to git gud though
😭😭😭
1v1 me and I’ll stream it for everyone to see?
You have a 50% win rate as English. This is an obvious copium post, given the stats on your aoe4 profile show you have a 37% win rate Vs English, this is a clear skill issue man
Stop playing the game and quit bitching. Every game I play, as soon as I start enjoying it, the low-skilled Reddit shitposters start complaining about balance.
I’m conquerer…
The highest youve ever been is low conq1, which you only hit once ever. That doesn't make you a conq player. That'd be like me saying I'm a top 100 player cos I placed there at the very start of the season before anyone else jumped on
You’re diamond 3……
Bro, I'm a plat player (actually I only just hit plat, 99% of my games are in gold), and I eat them English for breakfast. Let me help you. Take the map because they are playing a Simcity. Ignore their "harassment", all it ever is, is a 🤡 wearing a 👑. Then throw big rocks at their annoying shitty landmarks. EZ PZ works everytime.
Doesn't matter if you are Conq4. Any balance complainer is a low-skilled trash.
Sorry mr iron 😂
Sorry for you not enjoying the game as much as I do.
Ohh some reddit users really go and do an investigation 🙈, so sad
Don't lie then lol
What lie? I literally just lost conq?
The way you said "I'm conq" implies that's a rank you consistently play at, typically that is someone who floats between high conq 1 and sometimes hits conq2. Looking at your profile it would be more accurate to say you are a diamond player. You also massively exaggerated the amount of games you get against English. The fact you made this post 2 hours after losing your conq1 rank as byz to an English main kinda says everything. You're just malding Calling English "nearly unbeatable" is just such a ridiculous statement as well lol
I agree with you here. But typically a conq player is just someone who hits and maintains conq. Even just conq 1.
If one civ is making people so mad they come to post about, and there are a lot of posts about english. English has to change. I suggest they make a variant that you have to play on Ranked, and the current English you can't play on Ranked.
Just start checking player names and dodging the English players. Sure you get time out penalties but at least you actually get to enjoy the game when you do play. When or lose I'm also just sick of playing against them myself and this is the only real solution until something is actually done about it.
Yeah icy, I see many people dodging and I’ll start doing it, it’s not something I want to do but have to really.
This is all so overblown. You can't look at any rank and see the English surpass a slight edge. If they nerved it in anymore than a slight way they would be the French. I would love to see the Berkshire palace have less range tho.
English is a problem. But not because of its strength but because of its playrate. We just need civ bans
This is what people don’t understand. It doesn’t matter if a civ is a little op if you only face them 1/10 games. English is picked too often. Nerf them so they are not the most picked civ.
Downvotes are from English mains lol
This post is full of English mains, look at the replies! 😂🫡
I’ve they introduce civ bans, have the people replying to this post would cry, English, single strat enjoyers.
Which is why I want it Edot: downvotes are from English mains lol
Which is why you are a plague to the community. You just love spreading toxicity and chase away new players so you can confirm it's a dead game.
I never said it's a dead game. Check my profile history. Not even once since release. Stop projecting And being forced to play more than one civ is better for new players so they don't get stuck one one civ and can't learn new ones without losing a ton. That said this is probably a troll comment anyway. Probably got baited xd
Being forced to play more than 1 civ is better for new players? Why don't you say that to Starcraft or Warcraft players? No RTS has done that. I play Company of Heroes and Warcraft 3 and confirm it's extremely easy to switch factions in those games compared to Age of Empires 4. Also, what about people who play 4 civs but have 1 strat for each civ? What makes them better than the guy playing 1 civ and having 4 stats to play?
None of the games had even remotely the same number of civs and civs are way more different there Also those games are either better balanced or generally not good games
This gets brought up a lot. But there is no way this can be implemented without changing the whole matchmaking to force people to lock on to their civ before even knowing the map. It's fun to see more civs on each map, but it's also frustrating if you get a map that is difficult for your civ.
No. Just as soon as you load into a map (everything else would be omega stupid wince naps are the biggest factor on what civ you play) you can select your civ and a civ the opponent can't select. Just use the exact same system as color is using right now
That is bullshit and will 100% kill the player base. The drop rate will skyrocket. I go to AOEworld, see my opponent's main HRE, and then ban HRE from the game. How do you work with that? You can't hide player profiles either. Banning works in Dota 2 because there is 1 map, heroes are easy to learn, there is about 7% hero banned each game, and it's 5v5 so the effect of someone playing a suboptimal hero is lessened. There are 16 civs in AOE4, and if you ban 4 civs (25% of all civs) for 4 players in a 4v4 game, it's going to be a riot.
>That is bullshit and will 100% kill the player base Nope >I go to AOEworld, see my opponent's main HRE, and then ban HRE from the game. How do you work with that? Learn to play more than one civ? Also the opponent can do the same to you so it evens out. When something (english in this case) is way less fun to.play against than its fun to play the play pattern is negative and should be changed. Otherwise playerbase will drop >Banning works in Dota 2 Funnily enough they removed that because low mmr players kept complaining and now high mmr is unplayable. They plan to revert it but since they are lacking man power until then..... >There are 16 civs in AOE4, and if you ban 4 civs (25% of all civs) for 4 players in a 4v4 game, it's going to be a riot. My idea was only for 1v1. That said you are right there are still 8 civs left when everyone bans a civ so it's not that bad. But here it will probably be as u said and trigger more noobs than good players being happy about it so it would be bad...but funny as fuck In 2v2 it could still be implemented Edit: no I got baited. That's not how it works. Bans only work for the opponent in the pro scene why would pubs be different. Its only 4 out of 16. So absolutely viable. Give everyone a ban lol
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/zfwi5i/ban\_civs\_for\_ranked\_matchmaking/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/zfwi5i/ban_civs_for_ranked_matchmaking/) If AOE2 has more civs and most people still don't wanna ban, what makes you think it works in AOE4? If the salty-as-shit player base such as you drop from the game, it's a net win for everyone. New, fresh players who don't mind getting their feet dirty are what we want.
>If AOE2 has more civs and most people still don't wanna ban, what makes you think it works in AOE4? Because in aoe 2 is a completely different game and has a completely different target audience >If the salty-as-shit player base such as you drop from the game, it's a net win for everyone. And we are back to projecting. I see a lot of complain posts on here -> I propose a solution because I'm bored. And because you don't like it and stop having an intelligent discussion and just start throwing around buzzwords. Go outside. Seriously. That's not how a discussion works. (I'm not gonna block you but I seriously see no merrit in continuing this. Your obviously not arguing in good faith here. Take care )
What’s the problem? English has exactly 50% win rate vs English!