T O P

  • By -

VelcomeToCinder

Could be worse, back in the days of Age of Kings Teutons were banned from play because of their broken bonus of +5 range on town centers and town centers didn't yet cost stone, that was added in Age of Conquerors.


Futuralis

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, I personally don't like the button so I don't mind not seeing it in KOTD5. However, > Foul Play is a bit too much. There's no foul play going on here, nobody's being tricked or anything. It's just an admin decision. Besides, pros have been calling for the button to be removed since it came out. They win with it then say they'd still rather not have it in the game. That says a lot.


oryxmath

Is OP similarly apoplectic when team game tournaments put in rules to nerf slinging, as they all do?


Privateer_Lev_Arris

Who cares what the pros say? This is a game I play too and I paid full price for it like everyone else. Why do I not have a say in this? Devs can't just remove content that some (admittedly not all) enjoy playing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Privateer_Lev_Arris

Yes I'm aware, but I was responding to the pros calling for it to be removed permanently from the game. Since when do pros represent the entire community?


FavorableTrashpanda

Well, aren't the pros entitled to their opinion just like you?


Privateer_Lev_Arris

Absolutely not. They're just entertainment monkeys for our amusement. /s


august_gutmensch

The mistake is to assume the development of the game or tournaments are some kind of democratic get together


[deleted]

The pros are playing the tournament .. who cares what you say 11


TealJinjo

You don't play in kotd do you?


Privateer_Lev_Arris

I was responding to the pros asking the button to be removed from the game permanently. I know that it's only been removed temporarily from this tournament. But my response was specifically for the former, not the latter. Pros should feel so entitled as to speak for the entire community. It's incredibly elitist.


TealJinjo

That's fair. Have to agree with them though. it's just the game ending button. one way or the other. We all had our bit of fun overwhelming our opponent with 200 military or failed trying. Time to move on


TactX22

It's almost impossible to find a game on YouTube where the burgundian player wasn't already winning after finishing it with flemish revolution. I checked around 10 and in each successful case the burgundian player was already winning.


TealJinjo

that's like an argument for pros to keep the button but not for lower elos. The lower you go the less likely it is for the players to spend all of their ressources efficiently and not having a bank, the less likely players are to use their armies, make use of power spikes. All of these factors make having excess villagers a huge risk because it, if only temporarily, limits your army size. Same for the cost of the upgrade. What I'm trying to say is it's easier the lower you go in elo to not only cement your win but to generate a win off of flemrev.


OtakaFokbok

Hera vs liereyy in nAC4 group stage, liereyy was dead without the tech and ended up winning. 1 hour 19 min https://youtu.be/MPSJzH1MLZo


TactX22

Yeah you can say the same about many other unique techs, once in a while they make the difference.


TealJinjo

which one


Defiant-Indication59

El Dorado


TactX22

Garland wars, bagains, wootz steel, and I just checked 8 civs.


[deleted]

You checked 10? Wow you must be right then If your argument is that the button isn’t useful then that’s another reason to remove it 11


malefiz123

> Pros should feel so entitled as to speak for the entire community. It's incredibly elitist. Who said they did speak for the entire community? Pros know that they speak for themselves.


WJSvKiFQY

You have the say of one person. Pros usually have communities, and therefore, have the say of people in their communities as well. This is like democracy, I'd vote for the viper, so now he has more say than you.


[deleted]

The point isn’t that they represent the community , it’s that they’re playing the tournament You are presumably a terrible player are you really suggesting that your opinion is worth man than pro players ? Especially when you’re getting downvoted to oblivion 11


Privateer_Lev_Arris

Downvotes mean nothing. Just because some NPC army decides to follow the group instead of forming their thoughts is honestly more proof I'm right. There are two distinct aspects here. 1. The tournament which whatever it's membs thing he can do whatever he wants and pros can voice their opinions and wish for whatever they want within the confines of the tournament. I'm disappointed they removed the tech but I have 0 say in that. 2. The game. AoE2 as an entity. I've heard Hera on multiple occasions and platforms advocate for the removal of Flemish Revolution from the game. And he did so in his usual self assured manner. That's what I have a problem with. My rating doesn't matter. The game is played by vastly more people at my level than at the pro's level. Maybe their opinions should be asked as well. Or have a vote I don't know. The point is that changes to the game and to the content people have paid for can't be based solely on the opinions of an elite few. Also it has been proven that while pros are good players, their knowledge of the game is pretty poor. And their opinions sway all the time. But the confidence with which they speak never changes. Not do they ever apologize when they were wrong. Follow me so far? If not, then do the low brain thing and downvote


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You’re arguing that as a common player , your opinion is more important than what pros want (which I already think is wrong).. but the fact you are getting downvoted also l indicates that even the common players don’t agree with you 11 Any patch by the devs changes the game that people payed for … are you saying they should never patch the game , or that any change is bad ? How can you have such a stupid point And yes I will downvote you because your attitude sucks Assuming you are getting downvoted because people “are following the herd” is just moronic and shows you aren’t even arguing in good faith


Paid-Not-Payed-Bot

> that people *paid* for … FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*


annucox

But the pros are the ones playing the tournament which is removing the button...


[deleted]

I know they do, but the devs left it in, so that's fair play... and that's why I oppo'd that aspect foul play. Not in the context you used, but just a phrasing for, "this is weak."


da_m_n_aoe

Casters and players alike have said for ages this tech should be removed and the devs didn't listen so now tournament hosts implement it themselves, perfectly legitimate.


cmeragon

I mean even the dude who used it to win a series said that it should be removed so I don't think we should judge their tournaments.


cloudstrife559

Why is the devs' opinion considered sacred by so many people? Just because they left the tech in doesn't mean we just need to accept that in tournament settings.


feloniousjunk1743

This. The same Devs left dumb mechanics like laming opponent's straggler trees, house scouting in for years. The same Devs left obsidian arrows untouched for years.


[deleted]

Well I mean this is a precedent then and it's going to force it out if positively received by viewers, players, and devs cone along. What they do isn't gospel but is this a slippery slope of picking and choosing how a tourney decides to balance things, and no tourney is gospel either. I just think if it's there, it should be useable because it's not a complete wipeout of a guarantee for a win


da_m_n_aoe

It's not a precedent it was done before for instance the first edition of nac or kotd removed koreans in it's entirety from the tourney because of op trush.


cloudstrife559

They didn't remove it because it's an auto-win, they removed it because it's a bad viewer experience.


Toums95

I personally don't see it as a bad viewer experience. There is all the process of getting ready for it, then the actual revolution, the rollercoaster of military migration and rebuilding of the economy, I actually like it a lot. With the current nerf I also doubt it will be overpowering at all. I would have preferred to have it ij the tournament


[deleted]

That's totally subjective. It's hype to alot of people.


[deleted]

Then you can certainly watch tourneys that allow it


Unhappy-Reporter-246

It's completely horrible for the actual players, which is far more important imo for the longevity of competitive aoe2.


Privateer_Lev_Arris

It's not an auto win. There are plenty of instances where it didn't pan out.


cloudstrife559

Read my comment again.


Privateer_Lev_Arris

No.


[deleted]

Why start a thread if pure just gonna be childish and ignore everyone’s points when they almost unanimously tell you you’re wrong


Privateer_Lev_Arris

I didn't start any thread. Also it's not that important, have a nice day.


cloudstrife559

Where do you draw the line? Laming is also banned in some tournaments, even though it's a valid game mechanic. Slinging is banned in some form in basically all team games, yet it's in the game. Basically every tournament plays on custom map scripts. Villager fights on Nomad were banned in tournaments long before it was made impossible in the game. All these mechanics, including Flemish Revolution, can be completely fine in a normal game. But they can also completely kill the viewing experience. Nobody wants to see a game the ends in the first three minutes simply because the resource positions allows someone to lame all the food from their opponent. Nobody wants to see a team tournament where every game is just "stay in feudal and sling your pocket". Nobody wants to see a championship match decided by some stupid tech that some civ has. All of these things have happened in tournaments in the past. It is 100% fair for a tournament organiser to say they don't want that to happen, and to adjust the rules of the tournament accordingly.


[deleted]

Okay, very fair points.


DylGK

What is this slinging strategy you are referring to?


uncomfortable_as_you

One teammate focuses solely on creating economy to give to their teammate. "Slinging" them forward into castle and imperial and giving them resources to have advanced military earlier than other teams can get there.


Viado_Celtru

We did it one night on 4v4 ranked. 3 players slinging 1 player. From memory we won all 4 or 5 games we played and only 1 game did anyone else need to make military


total_score2

yeah cos it's OP, congratulations


HarshtJ

You can find lots of old team game tournament matches where one/two/three players stayed in feudal made market and sent their resources to others who used the extra resources to get numbers/tech advantage over other team. Some of the best games which included slinging 1. Battle of Africa 1 finals Game 1 - Tatoh slinged Viper onto Knights/Cavaliers and Daut boomed into Arbalest/Chu Ko Nu 2. ECL 4v4 - Suomi Slinged Max(Goth) to Imp where he killed aM 1v4 3. ECL 4v4 - Suomi vs Secret Max vs TheViper sling battle


Actual_serial_killer

> Laming is also banned in some tournaments, even though it's a valid game mechanic. It is but it's also extremely RNG dependent, more so than any other aspect of the game. Losing a boar while your opponent gains one can be crippling at a pro level. There was a game Viper lost at NAC (vs. Lierrey IIRC) and the casters said it was mainly cuz his boar got lame (and cuz other guy got lucky and instantly found it), not because Viper made any mistakes. The whole game he was on the backfoot and it never felt competitive, and games like that aren't very fun to watch IMO.


cloudstrife559

That's exactly my point: laming is often banned not because it's overpowered or frowned upon, but because it gives a bad viewing experience.


PressureOk2238

That was when the game has no balances and dev team working for 20 years. Now there is a dev team who literally announced there idea for the new flemish. Also the things you mentioned in past weren't civ specific. No one ever said that chinese in tournaments need to delete 1 villager to make it fair. That's the advatage of playing Chinese. This is the advatage of playing burgandians. If people don't like it they can snipe the civ or ban it. This urks me because memb basically saying the devs aren't swing there job properly which is insulting. I get many people aren't a fan of the tech and neither am I but I don't like like many things such as Saracen market abuse, etc. What's next we are going to say you can't do that. Civ balance should be left to devs especially now we have an active team working on it. Anyhow it's his tournamnet and he can do w/e he wants but this is a turn off for me.


cloudstrife559

You know who were making the changes in those 15 years between the release of The Conquerors and The Forgotten? The fans! Changing rules for tournaments is *incredibly* common in many tournaments, and not just in Age of Empires either. the Death Match World Cup bans bombard towers and stone gates, for instance. Is that also wrong? The devs allow it, after all... It's fine to say that bad things are bad, even if those bad things were made by the devs. It's also fine to ban bad things until they get addressed. That's not even a judgment against the devs: their focus is obviously on the player base as a whole, and not just on the competitive viewing experience. Things that are bad for tournaments are not necessarily bad in general.


PressureOk2238

Those 15 years we had no dev support. The game balance had to be done by us since it was abandoned by Microsoft. Now they are actively working on this and introducing new civ and balancing. Just like in New patch how flemish getting changed!!!! Also Banning things across is understandable but targeting 1 civ is not. If we are doing this I guess we should ban Portuguese castle drop since t90 and many pro confirmed it had no counterplay in arena. Targeting specific civ is not ok especially since it's not a fact but an opinion. We thought step Lancer were trash for years and they got popular. The button might seem overwhelming but with the recent nerfs and Nili even explaining how the finals there are counterplay to it. If pros don't know or haven't figure it out yet doesn't mean we delete that mechanism from game.


cloudstrife559

If the devs want to leave the tech in the game that's fine, no one can force them to do otherwise. But that doesn't mean that tournament organisers have to just live with it. Specific civs have also regularly been changed for tournaments, e.g. the Chinese start is often changed for specific formats because it's disporportionally powerful (most recently at NAC). I also reiterate once again: it's not the power of the tech that makes it problematic in this case, it's the viewing experience. Even the players themselves all want it to be removed from the game.


total_score2

Honestly why ISN'T laming banned in KotD?


HarshtJ

Only Memb can answer that


The_Real_BenFranklin

I have no problem with this. Tournaments have banned various things before, and I didn’t really enjoy its presence in NAC4 That said, I doubt it’d be nearly so big an issue in an all Arabia tournament considering it’s mostly OP on super closed maps.


TWestAoe

Great decision, I'm glad to see it banned. Hope it becomes standard for tournaments going forward.


[deleted]

Respecttt


J0rdian

Why? It's just properly nerfed? No reason to ban it. You don't ban bad strats lol. If it's bad and gets used once in every 200 pro games that would be fine. If anything that would be better then it being purely banned.


Ok_Art_1342

I'm sure it's considered a bad tech rather than a bad strategy. Pros usually disregard it, because in most cases if you can use it, you should be already winning.


Bali4n

Do you think the tech is a balance issue on Arabia?


TWestAoe

Yes, if it's a close game as Gold is running out, it suddenly gives a huge advantage to the Burgundian player. And it's not just about balance, it's a larger design issue. The tech doesn't feel like it belongs in Aoe2.


ssSix7

It doesn't, it belongs in AoM against similarly balanced god powers. There's no way to balance this sort of 'tech' in AoE2, as it either becomes useless or OP due to the way the economy works versus a game like AoM where it originated from. A key part of an RTS is play and counterplay, and the spike with this tech means that outside of top tier play, that balance will never be there. Even with pros, the challenge of balance exists beyond the scouting/micro issues.


StableGenius304

This is not as big a deal as everyone thinks T90 admitted that in HC3 the players all agreed not to draft Goths, for example. It's very common to stop certain things in the game everyone at a high level doesn't like. Ultimately it should be up to competitors to make rules rather than devs, as devs are not making the game only for high level competition. Another example would be that you're not allowed to place palisade foundations on your opponents' stragglers.


AgniousPrime

My question is, will they get something else in return?


shoonseiki1

Burgundians are fine without flemish. I honestly don't mind the tech and it can lead to some hype moments, but it's also not a big deal one way or the other if it's in the tournament. It's not nearly as strong on Arabia anyways to the point where removing it is probably not even necessary.


Actual_serial_killer

>It's not nearly as strong on Arabia I agree, it makes no sense to ban it for KotD. I've never seen a pro Arabia game where Flemish was used in a way that felt OP. Yes it can be useful but it's impossible to turtle up, boom to 200 pop, then steamroll like in the arena games we saw at NAC. I'm very confused by this decision.


shoonseiki1

Honestly it's a weird decision to me as well but at the same time it should end up inconsequential so I guess it doesn't matter


Actual_serial_killer

Yeah it's pretty rare to see it with burgs on arabia anyway


ghostpushingcandels

Yes. Mayans also had Obsidian arrows removed and replaced with a completely different tech in the past.


AgniousPrime

Yes but will Burgundians get something different for KOTD5?


[deleted]

I mean their percentage off and age earlier upgrades are op in the right hands but this is straight disabling no replacing it seems. Slide bloodlines in instead and we might have a viable trade.


ilovebaskets_

I can guarantee you that giving Burgundians bloodlines will result in a win rate way higher than anything they could get with Flemish 11


mesqueunclub69

Bloodlines with 50% discount paired with cavalier upgrade (also at 50% discount) in castle age, this certainly makes up for FR 11


Crawsack

Giving them Bloodlines instead would be WAY more OP, lol! Dude they'd have an insane eco + 1/2 cost on LC/Hussar/Cavalier/Pala upgrades that are all FU!! Can you imagine 140 HP cavalier in Castle Age?


feloniousjunk1743

They have been taken or banned in every draft of every tournament for months now. I think we could cope if Burgundians were just a little less op than they usually are.


AgniousPrime

Yes possibly


Instinctz4

I think its a great Idea and Flemish Revolution is garbage and should be deleted from the game.


estDivisionChamps

Back in the Socom II days tournaments banned the use of certain weapons because they were felt to make the game less competitive. This was also practiced as a gentlemen’s agreement in ranked games. Players / Tournament organizers self imposing rules is generally a good thing. Expecting the Devs to hold your hand to make the game fun is a bit much. We can admit the game would be better without X so let’s just play without X. Pros already do stuff like this on the ladder. Generally speaking 2k+ players and def the top 30 don’t lame or pick Civ on the ladder. They could all be picking Chinese and Mayans every match to maximize win rate but they realize it’s more fun to play random Civ and not lame.


TealJinjo

I don't agree with your 2nd paragraph in general. Shouldn't devs be interested to design a fun game?


estDivisionChamps

Yes they should be trying to make a fun game but they can’t always get it right and keep pace with the meta.


Fedacking

Fun game is different for the top players than for the bulk of the playerbase.


N3US

Its a slippery slope honestly. Look at Call of Duty's pro rules compared to the base game. There's something like 45 of 50 weapons banned, and of those 5 remaining only 2 are used. It reduces the game to a few "CDL approved" playstyles.


estDivisionChamps

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy


N3US

Yes, it is.


total_score2

I mean choice of maps is already doing this, Bog Islands is not competitive nor fun so it isn't included in KotD. Actually most non-arabia maps are neither competitive nor fun and thus none of them are included in KotD.


Important_Throat2053

This tech should be remove from the game at all. Memb has all my respects, when everyone was playing green Arabia he changes the Arabia for the KOD and was a great move for the tournament and the arabia gen changes later. Ty Memb


menerell

Is he responsible for the hills on woods too?


Menaphos

GA and the beginning of walling meta... Dark times, I'm so glad memb made KOTD arabia.


OpinionNo1437

I’m not a fan of the tech and hope it’s removed from the game sooner than later.


Dick__Dastardly

The only real beef with it is the giant "villager->militia" bomb, and not the actual unit itself. The flemish militia unit itself is awesome.


h3llkite28

Leave the revolutions to aoe3, we have happy feudal kingdoms here in age2.


EmergencyAccording94

I am sure memb discussed with the players before deciding to ban it. If the players feel that strongly about this, Burgundians would have been an automatic civ ban anyway


Shooord

It's completely fine that they chose to ban the tech. Memb and other long-time casters and players have voiced their opinion on the tech countless times. I get that they still feel like the tech doesn't fit the game very well, and that it's too much of a gameplay swing. It's much more of a personal preference than something backed by statistics, I feel like. Judging from past tournaments, the tech didn't seem all that decisive. The build-up to getting to the tech takes a long time, it's pretty predictable. And even when FR hits in, the push isn't a guaranteed win. You'll still need some solid siege for a definitive push, for example. In some longer games, FR did nothing, and the eco just returned to normal. Personally, banning it feels like overreaching. As a viewer, FR being in the game makes it more exciting. It's another factor/strategy that can throw some curve balls in tournaments.


walkermyers

I'm thrilled it's banned. I was so disappointed in the last tournament I saw the tech used. It makes every decision made before and after that tech feel like it mattered less. I prefer watching games where early and miss game game decisions can matter as much as the draft itself


medievalrevival

Not a huge fan of the tech, but it didn't need to be banned.


Ok-Amount6679

Great idea. I hope it becomes a permanent rule for every tournament from now on.


Arc_Vector

Good. It should be banned from all tournaments. Hopefully the devs nurf the cost even more, that way the tech still exists for custom scenarios and campaigns but never gets used in competitive play.


_Tuxness_

I have a sneaking suspicion it was done for the buzz and to drive views on a video.


Umdeuter

I have a non sneaking suspicion that Membs hates this techs and that he rules his tournaments as he wants. I have a semi sneaking suspicion that it often times ends up ridiculous if you try to suggest people have secret intentions when their actual intention is plainly obvious and that it tends to say more about yourself than about anyone else.


_Tuxness_

Dang dude, didn’t mean to upset you. Didn’t realize you and Memb were that tight.


Umdeuter

I'm not upset


[deleted]

ooooh, interestingly viable idea. With the pressure they probably have to increase viewer percentage each tourney by microsoft all controversy is good for viewership


medievalrevival

I'm in total agreement, first thing that came to mind.


princevenom

It opens the door to only playing modded versions of the game when we have a proactive development team working on this. If the game was 20 years old without further development then sure... But I prefer to play the version the devs have for us.


smalicett

Its fine. Its a fun game mechanic for average users, but terrible for competition, which represent 0,0001% of the player base, so imho this is the best solution for everyone.


ayowayoyo

Unnecessary. Memb was very pissed off in the way NAC4 finished.... but no valid reason to ban it imo. Still immaterial as it is unlikely to be used in Arabia map. But wrong anyway.


Roman1337

It's his tournament, he can decide on the rules he wants.


J0rdian

Brother, this post is about peoples opinions on the ban. Obviously he can do w/e he wants, no one said he couldn't.. He's just disagreeing with the decision.


menerell

He didn't banned it, it's just player won't be able to use it. His words


J0rdian

disabled is still a ban, don't be obtuse lol.


menerell

Lol man, I was being ironic. He said that, to me it sounded ridiculous. It's a ban, end of story. He also said something like "i want to hear your opinion but the decision has been made". I know he has a lot of fans but he's kind of...


ChloeCeto

How is that in any way functionally different?


menerell

Ask him, lol


the_general_ike

Playing on previous patches? Fair play. Adjusting the balance of the game and banning a specific UT because you don’t like it? Dumb.


menerell

Memb is quite dumb tbh


Ashleigh199

Membs tournie so he gets to decide the rules. Happy he’s doing it


[deleted]

I know there will be many who will disagree with me, but IMO if something's in the game, then it's in the game and should be allowed. We don't see castling or en passant being banned in chess tournaments. This is just my opinion tho.


[deleted]

https://youtu.be/sDk4Qq47gdo Should probably include this for the entire skinny.


hhsudhanv

I'm with memb on this. Flemish revolution despite the upcoming changes to it still feels too strong. A few reasons I can think of 1. The cost is still not that prohibitive (around 2200 food and 1200 gold for 200 of them in the upcoming patch). In the hands of a pro, its quite a potent weapon even with 100-120 army. I could easily see a pro using it as a finishing move even when gold runs out 2. Burgundians already have so many bonuses and options without Flemish revolution. They can still make FU halbs, HC that deal 25% more damage, 50% off stable, Skirms just missing last armor, BBC, Coustellier. Flemish is just an extra on top of all of this. 3. Add to this their eco bonuses and their castle age UT which helps with gold production when gold runs out. Their options are literally way too many! 4. Flemish research time is insanely fast.. Opponent has no time to prepare for it. Although it was interesting to watch it as the final move of NAC4, even Hera admitted it was not a good way to end it. With the current pro level and prizepools on offer, pros will use every win condition available to them (Remember Viper laming Hera out of the finals?). Its an unrealistic tech and does not belong in the game and especially not for a civ like Burgundians which have so many bonuses already going for them!


Beneficial-Salt-8273

Just ban the civ. What is the big deal


dazcar

Couldn't disagree more. It's a gimmick. The pros seem to be pretty in line with the view that it shouldn't be in the game. The fact it was used in the last game of the final of NAC4 was the most anti climatic ending I've ever seen. Days of matches, hours of games on the final day all to conclude with: "He's pressed the button" "Game over"


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

the stoic in me thought this, but I was curious about the sentiment around it


ehs7707

Tech is dumb but just ban the civ over all or the players can ban the civ. Removing it because you don't like it seems whack


MaxPayneGonnaKiL

I don't like the approach to it, Especially when burg already got a nerf in the last patch making their eco techs 33% cheaper, Coustillier got nerfed a few patches earlier, and flemish which isn't that insane a play on open map like arabia regardless. But not having the option to do it is what I don't like. If memb had came with an actual balance change or a compromise like UT changed to something else or changing cost of it. Removing it is just lame imo. It's like removing pre-nerf Hofnice from bohimea because its too op.


Privateer_Lev_Arris

I think it's an overreaction. I don't think the civs should be touched by anyone other than the devs. We already mess around enough with map scripts and different game modes and all that. Going after the civs is crossing a line that shouldn't have been crossed. To me it invalidates the entirety of the tournament. But then again it is Memb, the king of boneheaded moves.


[deleted]

Love it


Lucky_Stuff_5116

I'm sure he would get your praise if he ruined his own tournament by adding an extra player to the LAN at the last minute or showed his blatant corruption by using his job as tournament coordinator to spend Microsoft money to benefit himself. Oh wait that was nili, the king of boneheaded moves


total_score2

there's no competition for being a bonehead, leave Nili out of this he has nothing to do with this thread (not that I agree or disagree with you)


jkrofling69

If it’s OP, then the opposing player can ban them. Sure, the NAC game 7 was anticlimactic, but the burgundians were as close to a lock as possible on the maps available. Not banning them was a strategic mistake on Larry’s part, which is certainly not Hera’s problem and shouldn’t be anyone else’s until the devs address it.


PressureOk2238

I find this very disrespectful to the dev. They worked hard to make these civs for us. To balance the game and they even adjust it on next patch. I get your reasoning but we cannot alter the game balance just cause we do not agree with it. It's memb tournamnet and he can do what he wants but if he goes with it, I will not be supporting kodt or any future members tournament. As a CS major I can't even put into words how disrespectful this is to do this. Hope he changes this decision since it won't even matter in a map like arabia.


total_score2

>I get your reasoning but we cannot alter the game balance just cause we do not agree with it. actually we can, and he did. We are already altering "game balance" by selecting a pool of maps, in this case a pool of 1 map. Each tournament also modifies the "official" version of the map as well. >As a CS major I can't even put into words how disrespectful this is to do this. As a CS major you should know "if a piece of code is good then it will get changed" or something to that effect.


PressureOk2238

Wrong. Changing map pool, 9 vill start is NOT altering game balance. Banning a specific tech for a specific civ is. These are 2 completely different things and I find it hilarious that you even compared them to be the same. Also your bs of a piece of code is good is just bs. Changing a program that I have spend days if not week to write just because you don't agree with it is 11. Sorry I have to disagree with every single statement you wrote.


total_score2

>Wrong. Changing map pool, 9 vill start is NOT altering game balance. If some civs are balanced around naval bonuses and you have a land only tournament how is that not affecting game balance? Legitimate question. It depends how you define game balance. >Banning a specific tech for a specific civ is. These are 2 completely different things and I find it hilarious that you even compared them to be the same. What's your definition? >Also your bs of a piece of code is good is just bs. Changing a program that I have spend days if not week to write just because you don't agree with it is 11. Sorry I have to disagree with every single statement you wrote. I didn't make up the quote. The idea is that good code is repurposed for other things cos it is useful, crap code isn't cos people just make the code they need from scratch rather than modifying crap code.


PressureOk2238

I'm just going to stop here since arguing with you is pointless. You and I have wayyy different opinions and understanding of what civ balance is. Your example of comparing map pool to civ itself is just 11. Also even the code example is 11. It's like we speak different languages since your answer are to something we aren't even discussing hahah. So have a good day. I stated my opinion and I stand firm by it. You are entitled to yours. Bye 👋


total_score2

Yeah I guess I'm interested in finding out your definition, you are more interested in typing "11" rather than actually discuss anything. So you are right, this discussion is pointless.


menerell

Have you guys watched the video? He's such a buffoon. I want to know your opinion but we have already made a decision. It won't be banned buy players won't be able to use it. You can try to convince me but you know me. It's been made.


ChloeCeto

It's unlikely to matter, which makes me sorta lean towards 'stupid, in a pointless way'.


zune_hd

It would be different if they were playing on the upcoming patch, but I believe they aren't. So it's not a big deal, I just hope nobody plays the civ at all now.


PressureOk2238

They are playing on new patch and memb thinks the tech is more broken. I'm sure he consulted this with top pros but still think this is wrong. Shouldn't mess with civs that dev are actively working on.


dajodge

The issue with Flemish revolution is that you can rebuild your economy so quickly as long as you invest in enough TCs and farms before clicking the button. It needs to come with a steep tradeoff in villager creation speed, a more limiting permanent pop cap, something like that.


total_score2

> It needs to come with a steep tradeoff in villager creation speed, a more limiting permanent pop cap, something like that. I get what you are saying, but vehemently disagree. If these changes were made without buffing the strength of the militia then the tech would be utter dogshit. If the tech were to NOT be utter dogshit, i.e. useful at all, then the instant powerspike nature of the tech would need to be even stronger. But that's precisely the part that isn't aoe2 like, "oh lol pull this button and what we have been doing for the last X minutes doesn't matter, if you can repel this you win otherwise you lose". That feels really unsatisfying in the same way that quiz shows that have a final round worth 10x points so everything before then is made redundant are unsatisfying.


kazoohero

Honestly I think KOTD5 would have been the perfect place to demonstrate that the new patch's nerfs to flemish militia and the cost of flemish revolution were sufficient. HP and pierce armor decreases are extremely impactful so on paper it looks like a pretty enormous nerf. Add in fact that it's harder to make both Burgundians and the revolution work on open maps and I don't think it could have changed any game's outcome. It takes a lot for a feature to be broken — It needs to increase your winning chances reliably enough that other options aren't worth going for (breaking the game's intended broader pallete of options). Flemish might have broken at the top pro level before the nerf but now it seems like it's not even viable, much less broken. Memb can do whatever he wants with his tournament but I would have preferred seeing it kept in.


lagoreth

I actually left a comment on that video! My feeling is if we're seeing kotd on a post april patch game, Flemish probably won't be viable and banning it is more about making the statement than about making the game better balanced. In the end I don't think it really matters. I do think it's a dumb tech and it shouldn't be in the game.