Age of Balance in RTS Games
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 май 2024
- Feel free to let me know if you have any suggestions for future videos. Enjoy this one and have a great day :)
If you are enjoying my RUclips content, check out my live stream on Twitch!
Streaming pretty much every day, starting time is at 6 PM CET. Link to my stream is down below.
►Beastyqt Clips: / beastyqtclips
►Twitch: / beastyqt
►Twitter: / beastyqtsc2
►Instagram: / beastyqtsc2
►Patreon: / beastyqt
►Discord: / discord
Beasty is now sponsored by SteelSeries! Get 12% discount on any purchase using the link:
steelseries.pbj2.net/k0qXj3 and typing in code: 'beastyqt' for that juicy 12% off!
Sponsorship contact email: beastyqt@epictalent.gg
Personal contact email: beastyqtsc2@gmail.com
Edited & thumbnail by / @blackfiresc2
#Beastyqt #AOE4 #AgeofEmpires4
Thanks for watching and supporting! :) 
Игры
Love this about imperial. That the game breaks down and becomes a passive macro vs passive macro meat grinder then it will never be fun.
IMO a couple things:
* do as you said and nerf passive gold
* maps have to make trade posts more contested; they cannot be in the corners
* sacred sites also must be more contested and likely needs to have the 10 minute timer become cumulative like in company of heroes
Essentially exactly as you said: make map control matter again in imperial
How about making trading posts produce less gold the further they are from the center of the map.
So maybe if you’re just trading along the side of a map, you’re making less gold than if you were trading to a center trading post, but if your trading from corner to corner you’d make a little more gold while overextending and exposing your trading
I've always loved fighting in dark age and feudal, but always felt like late game was kinda boring. I just didn't know why. Now it makes sense. In dark age you're fighting for sheep (and deer as/vs Rus). In Feudal you're fighting for food. Gold/stone in Castle, but in imperial, it feels like usually both players are just producing whatever they can as fast as they can. Both players units dies almost as soon as they're made, and the two masses are just locked in the middle until someone runs out of gold.
By your logic, arent you still fighting for gold then though?
In imperial it comes down to who has better units and who can micro their siege better, who has better springald micro etc, and who can camp choke points better. Usually the answer is English which is why long games against English tend to be a disaster to the opponent. And another reason to hate English because they are very strong early feudal or super late game.
@@d0rinat0r not if you have infinite gold, trade, civ bonuses, english farms, china taxes, Hre relics, malian mine pits, ottoman, japanese landmarks, or self trade in market with excessive goods for gold at that point its micro the macro should be done by that phase. And whoever wins is who has better unit trades or better macro setup du to the civ itself or better applied strategy. Farms need to cost wood to refresh, and trade need reesouces exchange feature to make it more costly to have. Where for 10% go the gole you make is exhanged with other ressources of choice
@@d0rinat0r they're mostly referring to the split map late game when the only gold is renewable gold that isn't tied to a location you can fight over. The exception is trade, particularly if trade has to go to a central location but many maps don't have trade, or the trade is along a safer edge of the map where it's easier to defend yours and harder to attack theirs. Contrary to for example fighting over gold in the middle of the map, where your armies are meeting at the location of those resources (rather than in the middle, with some harassment trying to interrupt trade deep in enemy territory)
@@d0rinat0r I suppose by super late game, there often isn't much gold left to fight over. It often does come down to whoever has more passive gold or whoever is trading more.
I think a soultion to boring late games is to make the wonder victory cheaper (cost less stone/gold) and faster. If it needs to be balanced across different civs, then you can add some buffs/debuffs like you can spend resources to speed up victory clock or if you control all sacred sites, then your opponent's victory clock slows down etc.
no clap clap gamer? :O
unplanned rant
This is what you care about?
just my 2 cents
i´m not entirely against civs that have some sort of autogenerating resources or bonus to them ... let´s be honest, losing because running out of resources is simply anticlimatic ( *looks at starcraft* )
that said besides starting gold AoE4 does have the way to gather relics AND fight for CoH style capturepoints ... AND even neutral tradeposts ... so i think it´s not like the player would be starved for alternative options to gain the resources necessary ...
personally i do like the byzantine oilmechanic where i think the downside is that you have to pay the resources full in oil instead food+gold+wood, and the fact that mercunits come only in batches with a longer non-affectable spawntime
so that could be a bit of a double edged sword and you can´t use oil for the core civspecific units where you have to spend standard resources, which means you would have to trade oil
i do agree though that every civ should have to use about equal workers to eco up .. maybe with 10 worker differnce at most
Well, if it's: fight for sheep, fight for food/wood, fight for gold/stone, then they could make imperial economy about the fight for space. Some ways could be: houses are worth less population each age (10 in dark, 8 in feudal, 6 in castle, 4 in imperial) and other pop increase structures similarly affected. They can also require larger area to build. This increases the space needed to field larger armies or workers. Resources are capped like population, and need warehouses/banks to increase max resources but also reduced storage effectiveness each age, but also cannot be placed in close distance to each other either with the distance being larger in later ages). Passive generators can decay and require rebuilding.
Beyond that, maybe they should consider a variant of Monarch: There is a monarch, but killing it doesn't automatically win the game. Instead, the monarch is tied to the landmarks and can only reside in them. The monarch has a crown worth 10 pop cap if killed and the monarch cannot be resurrected. Each landmark gets a crown worth 10 pop cap if destroyed. Landmarks cannot be rebuilt if the monarch is dead, and rebuilding doesn't restore the crown. Win the game by killing the monarch and destroying all landmarks least once. A wonder now counts as a landmark (no age up though) so requires a monarch to build and gets crown worth 10 pop as well if destroyed. Destroying all landmarks when a wonder is built doesn't kill the player but it stops the wonder timer (starts again if another landmark is rebuilt), so the wonder also has to be destroyed to win. This change awards aggressive play to slowly get population advantage
Apart from this problem of balancing the civs depending on their age or Late Game, perhaps it could be considered to remove one mine on each side of the map in the more standard maps.
Interesting. I also think that the incentives for relics, trade, and sacred places should be increased... It would make the game more authentic, staying true to history. From there, it would be up to developers to craft it in an engaging manner, with both high gameplay value and balance
yeah but if you lose 4 relics to HRE/OOTD with reignitz then you just GG out because you'll have no gold left in 3minutes? :D I think having the available resources on your side nerfed means that boom civs get a slap in their face because they have to move out way too soon for them to have a meaningful advantage from having a lot better eco than the opponent.
@@CarKiller92 There are enough mines to last a long time without passive economy.
@@Adribird at least 1h
Had a feeling this would happen once cisterns got significantly buffed - its golden age 1 for a 50 stone item you can immediately produce. farms giving gold and olive oil is a triple whammy. olive oil is just free units now, no drawback. I really like the idea of it, but giving byzatines free units on top is a lot, and it'd be one thing if they were regular, but they're specialized units. Just makes other civs feel less unique. limitanei + jav throwers is incredibly hard to deal with. does raise the point though that HRE sort of has the same issue in feudal. its just way too easy to fast castle unimpeded.
I thought the Rock Paper Scissors was rush > boom > turtle. no wonder I can't win much.
The problem is that turtle is not that effective due to you need to walk your villagers around or they wait inside a tower and are idle. Also every mistake you make can end the game for you
@@aluimmumitat perhaps that is the flaw in the game. Towers might need more stopping power not necessary more range. I found that adding early textiles allows you to fight back with the vills a bit more.
Never played aoe, but watched till the end, interesting stuff
I have a problem with that how are you suppose to punish a no army full eco strat when they reach castle in 8 or 9 min like HRE
I can try to zone them and get map control but i end up outscaled
Or try to age 3 like them but they get it faster anyway and get out scaled.
if they are fast castle that means that they dont have an army when they just aged up and they would need food/gold badly to produce castle age units, try to harass or just cut off their gold/food with horsemen/archers, they wouldnt be able to make many ghulams/maa
This sounds like the same complaint about Zhu Xi’s Legacy up until a few months ago - Jiangnan tower breaking this balance because you would get free units for building production buildings, essentially making it so focusing on eco still gives you a military.
Though I’m not sure why that complaint faded - the civ was nerfed in other aspects, but this supposedly remained.
I guess it’s a difference of longevity? For Zhu Xi, this is imbalance for feudal only, whereas Byzantines get this army for eco throughout the game.
Well production buildings give you no eco, you are paying 150 wood each and idleing 1-2 vills for a significant 10-20 sec to just produce a single zhuge nu. That's why in fedual rush builds Jiangnan is not even considered, you build it later when you have your transition to farm.
I don't have numbers but I think the problem with jiangnan tower can be when it gets giga value because someone finds an amazing spot for it. But even then, it's maybe only a little strong for a landmark, at most it's like 2 workers, and some passive from a landmark is normal.
Biz gets +50% olive oil from berries, and +60% olive oil boost from grand winery. I assume this means 100 food = 50 olive oil, and and since 100 food=110 olive oil seems way busted, maybe it's 100food=80 olive, which seems right.
So your 12 workers are are like 12 on food, 6 in gold, or 12 food and 8-9 workers on gold. That's a lot more than 2 workers tho it only lasts as long as you have berries and they have other costs.
Farms probably .32 olive oil per food. So 100 food vills is like 32 gold vills. That also gets +26% from cisterns
If there's 6 250 food berries, then that's 1500 food and 750 olive oil. Two patches is 1500 olive oil.
With the landmark that's 960 from 6 bushes. Adjusting for buying contracts, it would still take a while for the Jiang tower to catch up to the value biz got just from berry bushes
@@ChaseAnderson5k You’re talking about the meditation gardens, which are a different issue (And it was already nerfed, so it’s no longer broken).
I’m referring to the other landmark, that gives you units when you build production buildings. You build a stable for 150 wood, you get a horseman worth 100 food and 20 wood, which you did not have to expend on eco (Or 80 resources if you built an archery range I guess), which messes with that triangle in a way.
So how about add 50% of the cost of the batch/squad of unit cost + the oil cost for the mercenaries ?
Passive gold income in the late game is unbalanced as hell. Its the first thing a noob notices and falters at and the biggest issue on small maps with multiple players. It seems a game design issue more than just a civ misbalance.
Great video Beasty youre making this game better. Especially for new players who would never sit down and do the math to figure this stuff out.
You are welcome Beasty! ❤
this is what the $15 for.
Probably a joke, but the 15$ is to mix things up and add options for you. It's not to make every other civ have a loosing matchup
you were probably the same guy who was crying "Why should we pay 15 dollars for dlc when byz only has 40% winrate."
@@shaunaqpaul3078 to be fair, biz has been buffed. At the time beast didn't think biz was great, but thought they be good when buffed. He was right.
@@shaunaqpaul3078 I think their original problem was they have a lot of cost before their strength comes in so they usually die or are behind. Olive oil is nice, but you have to spend like 400 buying a contract and making merc house takes wood and the upgrade is slow, so to push with longbow spear you need 300 wood buildings and like 1k olive oil plus time for contract buy and longbow train.
Need stone for cisterns and need wood for farms. So they were kinda op after too much investment.
I don't know the buffs but I think it mostly helped that so they aren't as likely to just die or damaged, like faster contract train time, and of course the first minor stone buff.
People may have also just gotten better at not dieing.
@@shaunaqpaul3078 but put simply it's accurate to say biz at launch was not super good in the meta at the time. But now after buffs and newer meta (learning of civ) they are imba.
Byzantine were over-designed. There are too many different bonuses that interact with one another. Huge gather rate bonuses on everything, which scale geometrically with oil production, while also increasing production and research rates, and you can use the oil to produce unit types that would otherwise be unavailable, fill particular counter-niches, and in many cases are among the best units in the game from other civs. Limitanei at launch had 200% effective health vs ranged units with their shields up.
I think from the moment it released it was sort of obvious it would be busted at some point. It was always going to be the case that either players would learn to play them optimally enough, or they would buff them to the point their weaknesses (to the limited extent they ever actually had weaknesses, to be honest) were overcome. Or both. In practice it was both.
I think some of this may have come from them forgetting the mistakes they made with release-regnitz (you know, 900 gold a minute for 3 relics, that version of regnitz) and Rus bounty, where it's feast or famine, which always leads to bad gameplay.
I think one thing they should absolutely do is remove the 20% cost reduction on farms / olive groves. If your goal, as misguided as it was, was to conceptualise a situation where aquaducts stretch across the map in highly vulnerable ways, you probably don't want to just turn the civ into another form of english, that gets most everything from cheaply available farms.
You know, Ottomans and Mali were both designed around trickle income, income from zero supply cost sources that is infinite, has a fixed rate, and can be built in limited amounts. And Japan and Byzantines were both designed around farm income with berry bonuses to tide them over. Japan in so many ways is similar to HRE, and byzantines is actually very similar to the english, just more complex. You do wonder if this pattern will hold in future releases.
But yeah, extra income from farms is very strange given all the radical nerfs to trade. Especially the preponderance of maps with very low trade income that came in. You can't really create a scenario where the main source of renewable gold is extremely map dependent for most civs, and especially those with trade bonuses, but then let others just have a mountain of guaranteed trickle income.
Doesn't Ottoman have the same issue? In imperial they can have 70 workers while you need 120+ to compete with them with all their free units. I feel its even stronger with Ottoman (at diamond level) than it is for any civ with passive gold.
Oh and the fun fact is that Byzantine may have elephants better and easier than Delhi - elephant civ :D
Dunno if I’m getting better at the game or if byz is the issue. I switched from byz to just random civs recently and am winning way more games. The downside for byz is they’re slow and hard to defend with. The amount of various units they end up having to juggle in most builds is awkward also. Their siege is nothing special, even with the imp landmark. Cannon are nice but cost a lot of oil.
In the end the fact most civs don't need to fight for resources make some games long, because they are in a draw, no need to push and fearing a opponent push
They should nerv english Gold income from farms ! Too strong on a stare down in Imperial when everything os locked.
when was this streamed?
found it: www.twitch.tv/videos/2131927014. 5 days ago from today
5 days ago www.twitch.tv/videos/2131927014?t=00h36m20s
As a byz main after FINALLY getting an edge, plz don't get them nerfed!
Delhi is making army getting free eco getting more eco with sites and slowly aging up. The concept imo isn't broken. What's broken is the majority of civs that play like this are extremely defensive base building (eng Abbey, mali good gold spawns, byz safe winery, etc.)
Don’t really agree on that byz has army at the same time slowly have eco and tech part , he only has eco slowly build up by farm and cisterns and no tech at all. Even tho it goes to castle there is no army that directly can deal with mass feudal units ,there are no knight ,mma is weaker , therefore not like other civs can have a clear timing for timing push and deal severe damage. Overall I think the only issue is just first group of mercenary coming too quick compared to previous version ,byz always strong when it set up the eco and hit castle has mass amount of units when it first come out, and that been considered weak,which doesn’t change much. In my opinion make it slower at the beginning as before.would be just fine.
Byz have fedual knight but it based on RNG, they are on crazy crack if they access knight at home market (let's say Dry Arabia).
French need 840 Food 600 Gold for 6 Knight, Byzantian, well, free? You can easily castle up but having similar amount of French knight.
Let say Byz vs French, you can have same amount of resources invested into army from French (Limitanei + Horsemen), but same amount of Knight on field paid with oil, but you never spend a gold coin on army in fedual, this is insane.
can't agree more. I'm currently at diamond 3 and I feel the same that Byzantine is bustered. Basically if you open with double cistern, you will have a better eco than Abbasid golden age one as you reach there faster, on top of which you have oil as well. Byzantine can pay oil for their army so that they can save common resource for ageing up, then they will stay in equal army size with their opponent, have equal or even better eco will aging up faster. Once the cataphract with flask come out it's basically over, nothing in feudal age can stop this. This definitely needs to be nerfed
I was playing Malians against Byz. I lost to what Beasty said. I also won, but, I was constantly attacking the vineyards, literally, building units, attacking immediately, when those die, another set was in their base. I had more army, so when he attacked me, I was able to defend while attacking his base. I had over 50 worker kills. I did not lose but 5 workers and did not lose any other eco. At the end of that game, Byz out eco me by almost 20% and across the board.
I like Byz, I tried them out. If the opponent is not on you, they lose.
If you are constantly producing units and byz is defensive, he should have a higher eco… not sure what you’re complaining about
@@Americanheldhe’s saying naked booming with 1 tower is too safe and easy to pull out every game
At first Byzatine are the worst Civ and after a halve year they are the strongest?
the only leagues byz has over 50% win rate is silver and gold, the other leagues it's below 50 so they are not op except when played by someone that makes no mistakes
01:49
I wish the devs can buff the wolves attack to 5 :)
devs should fix some of the gold incomes in late game. especially regnitz mechanism. I personally want them to change the landmark totally. And to avoid the game lasting too long, bombards should be strong enough to end the game. My suggestion is giving them ranged damage like great bombards. And in response of this, all civs should get access to the culverin. This change would make the gold in late game much more important and make the late game better.
what I'd do for delhi to get culverins
Can’t you make the same argument about English in this version?
Its basically the same problem all rts have...... FREE UNITS...= bad and BAD for balance... they just get oil for making farms..........aka free resources for doing something they already would have to do eventually... People are not gonna like this take... and there would have to be other changes to compensate... but what if they had to choose... normal farms or Olive groves... that would make sense.. they should get OLIVE oil from groves and make farms for food.....???? logical... ???
I think dev should change something so games dont stall, and so good players can end games in 30 min max. It will be good for everyone (competitive and casuels). Long games are boring. My best idea would be making imperial siege extemly stronger and cost a lot to the point if a player gets there walls and keeps are obsolete (like it was in real life)
Yeah, I played a 53 minute game yesterday. The English player took the only choke point before me, planting his Berkshire Castle making it impossible to break through for almost 30 minutes. I guess we was evenly matched, but, it was impossible to really do anything.
Long games are great, 1h 2 hours games are best. You fight push defend repush and every one stays best games 2v2v2v2 nomad for hours nobody build wonder or toke sacret. Great game loved it. I hate 30min games makes me stressed
Sacred Sites could be rewords so that the process is not 100% lost if you lose them, but instead they slowly lose their progress over time as welll. Also 1v1 wonders should be scaled to be much cheaper.
After half an hour, one side is just insisting. Your suggestion will break the meta with imp siege rush
no passive gold,so basicly 20 less army and 20 traders more
A imperial tech that makes to that the vils costs 0 population would solve everything. With perhaps a cap on vills you can have.
So just increasing the pop cap in imperial. Huh
@@vrashtigoel1584 No, cuz then you can delete vills to get more military.
@@huberteichson8304 how about for every 1 min you hold on to a sacred site your max pop gets increased by ? BINGO!
So let's start with saying i'm the eistein of age of empire and i'm the best retired player of aoe4 .
Here to balance the game
Byz are the jolly civ but should't replace other civ , give basic man at arms to them and keep that cool idea for the next civ . Limitanei and cataprachs plus ram and mercenaries give already a pretty cool idea of how should be played byz .
Walls and castle , those are too weak they are not existant in imperial the fall like paper castle , well easy fix , add 5 population more to every cannon .
Ask me anything dev i'm ready .
Byz aint replacing any other civ it has one of the most unique playstyle what youre talking about .
And i enjoy my varangian guards so fck off your ideas are dumb as hell
also beasty is just overrating them as samurai are much better and hes just lying about them winning against hre mma
I feel like if you let Byz get to that point, you deserve to lose. They have poor map control, and are exposed to small pushes due to cisterns. You can also exploit the fact that they have cataphracts which doesn't have charge while costing 50 gold more. Their siege selection is also lacking compared to other civs.
Nobody builds Cataphracts. That's not even an argument. Are we playing the same game?
that point is reached the moment they gather berries. He isn't talking about late game here. Defensive boomy civs have a hard time defending against "free" oil units and you can eco behind it. Against aggressive civs you still have an army composition that deals with 90% of threats (Limitanei + Javelin Throwers) and you can add farms slowly behind it. Against Hybrid civs you can boom with superior eco.
I will ignore the rest but, their siege selection is lacking compared to other civs?
The problem with byz is that they don't have a weak point. They are not like the old english which struggled vs knight civs in feudal, and had weakest castle age,, loosing map control. Byz can handle knight civs without troubles. Byz can handle rushes. Byz castle age is strong and high tempo. And as a cherry on top their lategame is best in the game.
@@MrRealPrezes They have weak points
They have crappy cataphract instead of knight so they lack mobility for FFA and Team games
They dont have heavy unit in feudal and struggle against maa early
Their eco is slow to get going as even their farms are cheaper you still gotta invest into them and since you dont get any extra value from hunts youre forced to go on berries with lower gather rate just to get that oil.
IF they didnt have weakness they would be also top tier in teamgames
but they are at best average in those , let them atleast be top tier in 1 v1 after how bad they have been for so long
you pay the company money, then you get better ECO. That's when the companies' ECO is better, and getting more passive gold, so is your civ. There is no problem or issue with that. It is a win-win situation.
Small aside: The wait time for games on SC2 is less than a minute ^.^
Coincidentally, so are most Starcraft games 😂