TheViper reacts to "Monks are not OP" from DaveHun
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 июл 2024
- DaveHun's video (original) : • Monks are not OP: my take
T-West's video : • How Monks Really Work ...
Main Channel: / theviperaoe
Shorts: / @dailytheviper
Watch me live on Facebook Gaming ► / theviper
TheViper Merch ► teespring.com/stores/theviper
Donate ► theviper.live/
Discord ► / discord
Twitter ► / theviperaoe
Instagram ► / theviperaoe
Business Inquiries: theviperbusiness@gmail.com
TheViper | Professional Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition Player for GamerLegion | Sponsored by Re-Bo 
Игры
Monks are not OP video : ruclips.net/video/Av2fYgUJJig/видео.htmlsi=70RMXQzoPAqMa63h
T-West's video on monks: ruclips.net/video/-qRUaOHpbwI/видео.html
So cute that you call Dave 'Hun'
Not sure if this is a joke or not, but figured I should put in some comment just in case. Dave_Hun is a 2k+ hungarian player who's been around for quite a while, not Dave, the caster, who obviously everyone would call hun if they could. :)
@@rovsea-3761 Who?
@@rovsea-3761 Who?
@@rovsea-3761 Who?
@@rovsea-3761 Who?
Monks are a necessary part of the metagame. Knights in castle age are already the biggest power spike unit in early castle and without monks it would be evwn stronger and drop the viability of other units even further
I agree with your statement, the rock paper scissors of AoE 2 makes them needed since Pikemen are only good against Cavalry and even then struggle.
Crossbow beats all when massed, except for mangonels.
Knights and Light Cav beat Mangonels, but monks beat Knights, and pikemen/knights/crossbows beat Light cav.
The only thing that monks lose to is mass crossbows and lots of light cav.
So in this equation, Light have have essentially 1 use but die instantly to pikemen, which are easy to train with monks.
If we establish Knights as the default, and say that Pikemen aren't a counter due to the speed of knights making pikement a defensive counter. Then monks are needed since it's easier to get 6 knights than it is to get 18+ crossbowmen, resources and research alone dictate this.
Knights beating mangonels, means that Mangonels are only really a counter to mass archers, and used by the knights player themselves.
So it becomes Knights < Monks < Light Cav/Massed Archers < Mangonels < Knights.
Everytime archers are nerfed, knights shoot up in value, and monks go up since they counter knights. If archers are worse, then massing them to counter monks is more difficult and not worth it since then a single mangonel or skirms, again easy to mass with monks due to costs. Just ruins the point of archers.
yeah nerf monks and everything will be knights only. which will then need people to probably do extended feudal to build spear mass to counter them. people would rather complain about monks than make light cav.
Nobody wants monks to be awful so that they don't convert knights anymore.
Is just that monks are too strong at that to the point that raiding plays with knights are just discouraged and that just defies the point of the unit.
One mangonel vs Crossbows for example is a micro war (And you can add siege yourself, or cavalry/monks)
They are just too strong defensively and their imp powerspikes are too ridiculous
If faith gets discounted and buffed, then monks can still counter knights, but full monks still have a direct counterplay that isn't "only build light cav"
One thing that is really annoying as a watcher is atonement battles. After a monk is converted it should probably be stripped of all its faith (seems logical anyways right if you just switched religion) otherwise the snowball effect is so huge that essentially a randomly selected winner takes all, and thus ruining the game.
If the monk is attempting a conversion, its faith will be set to 0. If not, it will have 100% upon conversion.
@@mrister24 Yes but even if not converting that should be the case. In atonement battles the micro is never perfect, there is just too much stuff to do.
remove (or repurpose) the tech and make monks immune to conversion
That tech is called Heresy
Yeah, this def a stupid tech, should be removed/remade
He argued himself into the wrong point when talking about Masters of Arena. If, in every/most games something is made OR the COUNTER to that thing is made, then something is clearly wrong. If the only answer to monks is either make monks or build their direct and only counter... then they are OP.
i understand that argument but if they are truly OP then any counter would be a soft counter. I think the light cavs were more than to stop monks but to also stop forward castle placements and the like.
This is kind of my thought. Everyone says just make LC, which makes sense because they are a hard counter, but most units have different hard and soft counters. It feels like monks don't really have proper soft counters, with the exceptiong being seige, but once redemption and sanctity come the counter swaps.
@@nschep I think the soft counter for monks is numbers. But to get to the numbers you need you probably have to play as all in as the monk player. But the problem is that if you try to boom and survive a monk push it takes minutes for the return on investment. Minutes you may not have. And so you get those situations where the person has 2 to 3 times the monks as the defender can muster in even LC.
But that is kind of when monks are the strongest. Early Castle with low economy and low numbers with short rush distance.
A monk also can't push into a castle, but what we see often from defenders is they don't want to build a castle. They instead want to build 3 TC and boom into GG out of greed.
The main issue with reducing rng (by narrowing down the conversion window) is deleting units. If it becomes predictable when the conversion happens, then people can micro their way through this and basically work against how the unit was designed with its original intention.
RNG is unfortunately the reason we still see actual conversions in pro games. Reducing or removing the rng would need to come with the disability to deleting units that are being converted. If this comes with consistency even if it means a higher average conversion time, then this might be the sweet spot and one to also fine-tune the unit in the future.
Because simply nerfing the monks with range, low faith on creation etc. would still not take away the rng aspect and makes them even worse in anything below the top 20% of players. I don't think I have ever seen someone commit to some form of monk play as main or major supporting unit in my last ~150 games (unless someone tries to replicate something like the Hoang strategy) in my 1100 ish mid elo. They are seen sometimes to convert the odd knight, pick up a relic, heal or because of 'if I make a little bit of everything, I can't be countered!' compositions.
I see people play elephants, scorpions and longswords much more frequently than monks outside what I mentioned above. The value from this unit scales insanely with player skill and the majority of players just can't use the unit to their full potential. Nerfing a unit in a way that reduces its power on average to accommodate the top 10% would make it a meme unit for the other 90%.
Removing the rng doesn't necessarily make it easy to delete on time. The timer could depend on the elapsed game time, the current hp of the converted unit, the speed of the converted unit, etc, to make it difficult for the defending player to exactly gauge when should the delete happen.
It can be close to unpredictable while finally being fair.
On the other had, im not 100% convinced deleting is always a good idea, because the the monk keeps its faith AND the unit is dead and it can try again on another unit.
i dont think deleting is an issue. with heresy the person doesn't have to focus on the deletes and can thus mircro elsewhere. by forcing them to have to micro the deletes it means they can't focus on a raid or some other pressure you put elsewhere.
But that being said I kind of support the idea of having a multi tiered heresy. Start with flat conversion. first upgrade adds rng length to conversion. last tier is normal heresy effect on top of that.
its not just deleting, you would always kinda know for how long have your units stay in a fight before retreating from the conversion
I have to admit it is a little ironic @ 8:15 that the LCav open is mentioned... When the dominant pressures for this open are a) Relics and b) Monks.
Desipte great insight from you vipi on the monks and reacting to dave . It helps the community know about more ppl like dave and help them grow. If u had not reacted I would not know about dave. I will try to check his channel from now on as well from time to time. Keep it up. Love ur attitude grow along with others
I took a two year break off the game, and coming back I was surprised to see so much light cav and monks in every single game. And I get why, you can literally lose 2 monks for every knight you convert and it still a cost effective trade
My personal opinion is too make heresy and faith cheaper this way they can be afforded more often
I believe MBL had an issue with monks in a much older Arena meta
volololooooo
Holy cow that is an amazing and very scientific approach to the topic coming from DaveHun!
I thank you for the fact that you brought that up and also for a fact that you humbily reviewed it, mate.
Devs bless the Vikings!
I think monks are generally in a very good place. They ARE a counter to knights, but all units have counters. Thinking about what units you should make, or unit composition, is one of the key strategies of the game IMO. Monks are just part of the puzzle.
Sadly it's not how it works. I could agree with you if there were 5+ proper units to go, but right now we mostly have either xbow or knights, so if you have unit(monks) which counters them that hard you just enforcing xbow civs to be picked and played and that's what we often see in tournaments. Or people open light cav instead knights because they know that opponent will add monks immediately.
Monks countering Knights is fine, the issue seems to be that they're pretty great at countering a lot of other units if you're good enough.
There should be two type of monks coming out of monasteries.
1- Monks that can convert
2- Monks that can heal and pick relics
Single unit doing so much stuff is bonkers. Every unit in Aoe is supposed to do one thing work or fight, not both.
They are a counter to knights and on clown maps they are also a counter to siege. They have the counter of light cav but people would rather complain something is too strong than play their counter. Such as get xbows nerfed nearly into the ground instead of making skirms.
@@gauravbhandari732 nah, I think most of their powers should be locked behind upgrades or at least their abilities to do anything well should be locked behind upgrades.
Imo there are two problems with monks
1. RNG as explained in the video
2. no player feedback. With all other units we have a progress bar when they kill other units, health. You expect a 1 hp hussar to lose against a crossbow, unlike when at full hp. Against a monk you never know how long the conversion takes and can never exploit a long conversion for example.
You can never manage expectations against monks. You might not lose a single scout against monks, or you lose every scout without even defeating one single monk
@@actuallyKriminell that is his point. with other units you can know when to pull a scout from a spear to save its life. You never know when to do such from a monk. It would allow for some counter play vs monks such as attempting delete micro and the like. otherwise its kind of like playing the game with no health bars on any units. that is kind of what the current monk mechanics are.
"Monks aren't OP because in their best circumstances everyone just goes their counter" is not the greatest argument because even though no monasteries may be built in such a game, the power of the monk is still warping the meta.
If monks were OP, then missionaries wouldn't be a meme unit that almost no one uses, especially in a game where unit speed is too important when evaluating a unit.
I would say it is less about them being "OP" in being too powerful for the game, but about larger numbers of monks being frustrating to play against. Arguably being too powerful for the ideal support role within the gmae
The RNG is a big part of that. You can go into a battle with a significant advantage, but get a bit unlucky on RNG (especially with atonement involved), and you can be decisively defeated. And, no, you generally can't just avoid fights until you have an insurmountable advantage as quite often those military advatanges come from tradeoffs in the long term economy.
The snowball aspect is another big part. Good monk engagements can simply win the game. If you go into a knight vs crossbow engagement, one side will win but, unless they had a massive advantage, they will likely take enough losses themselves that the loser will have time to defend and get a chance to rebuild. With monks, one win with a bit of luck and your army is as strong as ever and the other guy has no time before you press the attack.
All that said, mobks are an essentail part of game balance and are essential against various strategies so an across rhe board nerf (like a signfiicant price increase) is probably a bad idea, similarly a nerf to redeption price or its effect against siege is likely to be really bad for the game. If they are to be nerfed, I would much rather something that has minimal impact on your first few monks but discourages larger investment in them.
monk engagements are usually done with low economies which is why however wins the often flat out wins the game there. And yes monk pushes are often something that can't be avoided but that is kind of the point. To put on pressure otherwise the unit and the pressure would be pointless. Which is why they are good on walled in maps which don't allow for continual escape and mobility of economy. For maps that don't allow avoiding fights with the army until it can 100% overpower the aggressor.
A lot of the quality of life changes make it easier to "afford" more micro time to play w/ Monks. Auto-micro, auto-everything
I recall in older versions of the AI. They did sometimes use all in monk strategies. At a certain size not even light cav will save you.
On God... I can still recall the image of my huge wave of light cav running into a square of AI monks, killing one or two, then coming back to destroy me. I'm glad this is no longer the case, you will never see that micro in real players.
I think the RNG aspect is important or everyone would delete at the perfect time in a lot of cases.
When he mentioned monks behind walls, he didn’t mentions that monks are way cheaper and faster to make a defense than getting ranges Xbox and upgrades.
I think monks need a small change, I’m glad to see the new changes to monks and want to see how things are and plan for the future.
The delete issue could be solved by just making units (and buildings?) undeletable while they are being converted. Even if the RNG isn't fully removed, it just seems to be too much at the moment.
Yeah... But if you delete you're still 1 unit down and the Monk just swaps to convert another unit, with built up charge.
So now you're down 2 units instead of 1.
Removing the rng doesn't necessarily make it easy to delete on time. The timer could depend on the elapsed game time, the current hp of the converted unit, the speed of the converted unit, etc, to make it difficult for the defending player to exactly gauge when should the delete happen.
It can be close to unpredictable while finally being fair.
Yeah plus RNG makes the unit less desirable to use since you cannot rely on it every time, this in and of itself keeps the unit in balance imo, also its a unique aspect of the unit, if you take it away the unit loses its charm.
@@EvilCherry3 I've always thought there is enough player control in microing monks, and being able to actually use them..that it offsets any 'unfairness' of RNG. It's kind of the same thing when people argue for robot umps. They want it to be 'fair'..and to be able have consistency, which leads towards better optimization. For me, sometimes you just have have that human element..and you just have to have a little randomness just to keep us all honest.
I think monks could be fixed (in combination with the building conversion change) by not allowing them to garrison except in Castles and now Fortified Churches, similar to cavalry. This would prevent much of the abuse under TCs and towers that makes raids almost impossible with just 1-3 monks.
I like the thought, would need to see it in practice to decide if its something that would be properly balanced. I think the building conversion change was the biggest problem, and am happy they are changing it. I would like them to wait and see how much of a problem monks still are after that before making changes. I think your suggestion could be good if more changes are needed. I think another good propsoal would be ending the charge up more quickly when the unit being converted is out of range. It doesn't seem fair when a player runs out of vision , but are still being converted, and then get insta converted when they come back into range to take the fight.
@@nschep there are definitely other problems with Monks, but I think the garrison flips are such a huge issue. It makes it impossible to raid with low-moderate numbers because the monks are unkillable with just moderate attention. I think the building swaps are pretty annoying, but I really don't see that as often as garrisons and just general monk abuse in low eco pushes.
At 10:30 "yes but also this and that so therefore. Ya know?" Truly the zenith of commentary. Funniest part is it sounds almost like nonsense but totally is understood.
I support a fixed conversion time for monks with a 2 tiered Heresy tech. Castle age adds a bit of rng extension to the conversion. Imperial creates the Heresy deletion effect. Maybe give both to all civs or at least the rng. As for the timer move the shortest to the current average or slightly shy of it.
to me there was a lot of "monks this because of that" when that was the cause of this monks.
There is an another approach to the conversion time (similarly to the Pig changes in Dead by Daylight).
You could have a mechanic when [first] converstions' times are random, but they would be average over a fixed sample size - meaning if say 5 monks converted faster than expected then next 5 would convert longer than expected by the same margin.
I have the select idle military in the space bar to micro monks. Works like you see in the video
Thanks for sharing!
The one thing I hate about monks is that there are encounters where 1 monks basically forces a player to retreat even with 10 units or so.
i like the way that aoe4 monk need relic to convert
if aoe2 can change like taht, there wont be a problem and topic or advantage to discuss
Oddly enough, i think he's not wrong and his points are solid.
That is Not odd. That is a reasonable assessment, since Dave's Video represents the opinionbof Most of the Arena Community. He makes valid Points opposed to heras Video where He is basically Just crying that He doesn't Like Monks 11
is anyone of the arena community amongst the top pro players? i rest my case
I don't think arena community is the true voice of AoE2 community either
Last time I check, standard games don't start with full wall to cover your bullshit opinion
Imagine TheViper saying "he is speaking quite low, and i cant turn up the volume any more"
I think the only thing broken about monks is them being able to switch a conversion from a building.
I would love to have viper as my project manager.
I have had my monks automatically convert some pikes that came to attack them. I wish I knew how I did it because that would change things massively.
the monk range is just ridiculous, honestly how is shouting at someone who is further away than you can hit them with a bow and arrow really going to convince them to join your army?
they can shout further than someone on horseback can see
monks should be able to convert enemy units only after a researching a monastery tech (could be 250 gold 250 food) that delays their power
sounds like a terrible idea ngl
Would be a nice touch to link the video in the description when reacting to them.
I had it as a pinned comment, but apparently it disapeared when the video was released! My bad, I added in the description as well.
Thanks for adding so quick! I think using the description by default should probably be preferred, not sure how frequently people will go to the comments, plus that can be more annoying if using phone/tablet.
@@Tiramis_
@@thecapybara1372pinned comments are a lot more visible than having to actively go into the description IMO. But I agree with the fact that the creator should be credited no matter what.
Just leave them like they are and give them armor.
Afaik a monk has a minimum conversion time, then an x% chance every period of 1,2 sec or so, and then a max conversion time. I don't like to speak about balance but I've always thought the min and max duration should be closer to the middle by 1 period or 1 second.
Would it make sense to implement an upkeep tax or something so that dominant units are less massable? If after your first 3 monks, 5 knights, and 10 crossbowmen, the cost to create or maintain them increases, would that change anything?
Should the ability to convert be a monk tech?
Should monastery be available in feudal with Scholar as a unit, which upgrades to monk to be able to convert?
Should monasteries cost stone too?
Should monks need to garrison to regain faith, unless they have a certain tech?
Fuedal age monasteries producing scholars that can't convert, along with faith changes might create a SCOUTABLE initial investment to get to monks, and could make relic disputes occur in feudal age. This along with healing might extend feudal age combat.
Being able to scout that your opponent is investing heavily into monks, and increasing the opportunity cost of going monks, might make them less of an always-present unit.
I think a good way to balance monks would be to increase the cost for each monk you already have
'People aren't complaining about monks in arena.' *VULULU intensifies*
What is the probability distribution for conversion? I feel like a normal distribution makes the conversion rng much less impactful but a uniform distribution is much less balanced
they could have conversation time have a larger base time + a smaller random time
What about removing the conversion bar from the monks, move it to the target of the ability, and give it a trackable indicator that both players can see. That way, the person with the monk isn’t able to build conversion and then swap to something else to immediately convert something, and the person who would be getting converted can see it happening and move that unit away from the monk.
What about they change it to a normal distribution of conversion time, so instead of having a 28% conversion rate starting from the 4th monk second, most conversions will happen between 6-8 seconds.
Oh god, the talk about AI monks reminds me of one of my oldest reddit posts where I sent 60 cobra cars to my opponent's base, and the little shit converted them all
when u see Monk, u just go Scout esay no need to question and doubt
however
if u see knight , it does not mean that u only go Spear is the perfect move,
when we see knight, spear is not the perfect move in any situation
but when we see monk in any situation, scout is always best perfect choice
Okey so i have thought about the monks, what if they cost 25-50 stone aswell or 50 gold with the stone then the investment would be harder and also harder to spam. Idk it would solve some issues imo.
what if converted units couldnt be healed
Honestly, all I've ever wanted for Monks is for their RNG to be gone.
Make conversion time based on targets health.
This means that targeting low hp units can be worthwhile for a quick conversion. While trying to grab something like a full health elefanto will take more time, but the reward is the massive swing of a big beefy boi.
Since the main problem with Monks is they can be frustrating when they insta-convert your stuff and when yours die to a knight you spent forever trying to convert. So eliminating the RNG would make them less polarizing.
would also make it viable to convert a big beefy unit with multiple monks, so me spending 500g for 5 monks to convert an elephant is much fairer compared to just snacking the elephant with 1 monk
hmmm... kinda like that, but I think there will have to be some modifiers in play, like monks have a bonus conversion speed vs certain units, like the elephants. otherwise I think the range in HP is too big. persian war elephants would be impossible to convert while monks becomes the best counter to a group of ten archers as you would be guaranteed to get the whole gang every time. but adjusted correctly with the appropriate bonuses I think it could work.
Or maybe just scale the RNG with the targets health. Removing the RNG would make the game less fun. It's makes things a bit spicier when there is that bit of a wild card thrown in.
I like that, to an extent. That somewhat mitigates the issue with elephants being countered by monks too hard, since their high health then takes ages to convert, and makes them MORE viable against the low-hp units that usually counter them via pure numbers, since they're an easy convert.
The only issue with it is that it breaks the knight-monk dynamic. Currently, monks could be considered an 80% counter to knights. An excellent counter, but not game-ending. If conversion is totally deterministic, then EITHER it has to be balanced that monks ALWAYS convert full hp knights from max range, or NEVER convert full hp knights from max range. They become a 100% perfect counter to the normal castle age powerhouse, and you never see knights again. OR they become 0%, totally useless against knights, and you never see monks again.
I think better would be a halfway point; there is still that random timer, but units all have inbuilt conversion resistance based on their current health.
That would also go along with the idea that «converting» someone is easier when they are in the brink of death. 😄
Would a good balance be to make monk conversion distance related instead of time related? Like 1 second per tile away? But i bet that would be really hard to program
That's not any more complicated than the way they currently work.
I think it's more fair if the time is a constant figure, if you start converting someones unit when they are close to the monk I don't think it's fair that you get a successful conversion.
What about reducing conversion range
To makes the monk RNG situation better, I would say just shows the faith bar of the monk.
Let the player sees about how much further their unit are about getting to be convered. Then they can react whatever they want with that information.
That's stupid. Rush monks with scouts and just delete them right before they get converted. No skill requires
@@superstar5042lmao you’re stupid. Deleting units takes no micro? And deleting your units would make you win the fight? Think it through man
What about introducing a "conversion bar" visible for both players? Would make RNG "visible" and allow the non-monk player to counter with deleting when using proper micro.
I don't think that's a good idea. People would abuse it to get the most optimal, fast conversion time by retargeting the monk.
units could start blinking/switching colors before the definitive conversion... could be interesting
wouldn't work due to how conversion works. Since it is RNG it would be a RNG bar, which would serve basically no purpose
That takes away a lot of the risk/reward trade off of diving on monks though.
I don't know whether monks are really OP or not but I'm inclined to agree with this person over Hera simply because they do a much, much better job at explaining their opinion. Hera just rambles and lists things monk do as if he's wiki but adds "which is op" after every mechanic.
The fixed conversion time could be nice, but as many have mentioned, you'd have to change the delete mechanic. Maybe make deleting units starts an X second timer that has to run through before it dies, and it has to stay in your control the whole time. Would be a neglible buff to the new knight equivalent that gets gold for killing units too, I guess.
Or maybe make it so they can't be deleted if they're being converted.
I seriously don't see why this is a problem. The Monk is still forcing that unit to be deleted, which cost resources to build and took micro and attention to delete. The Monk even gets to start converting another unit right away even, since it didn't succeed.
Yes, it's a nerf to Monks, but do they really need to be *that* snowbally?
Volume Master extension lets you boost youtube audio...fyi
I despise their mechanic. Have since 1998. Never used them. Makes Most of the units pointless to use in the early-mid game. Make heresy 400 gold or something.
Stopped playing aoe2 about a year ago and getting to a high enough level that using knights became impossible due to monks became just an exercise in frustration.
@TheViper What if they made it so that the conversion times are fully deterministic, no RNG, scaling with the HP. So yes, you can convert a Persian War Elephant but it should take A LOT of time. Thereby allowing you some but not total counterplay...
that is an interesting idea but it changes some of the relationship monks have with certain units.
@@AndrewTheFrank Ofc, the main idea is to restructure the relation of monks to other units. Otherwise it means we are stuck with what he have right now. I mean, it is a risky business because in order to find a good solution, maybe some testing is needed, several ideas implemented and tested out by players, but too much of that might turn players away.
@@alijabevrnja4310 not really. if the minimum conversion time is increased by 1 second the general relationships between all units is kept the same while still giving them a nerf.
The monk problems is that there is about 25 years of monks being this way. People want them nerfed but I think them being nerfed will likely be a turn off to even most of those who are calling for a nerf. That is partially because nerfs are often never without a heavy hand. It will, if not done carefully, will drastically restructure the whole game.
But if you removed RNG then players will learn when conversions will happen and will easily delete units when they know they have no chance of escaping. Removing RNG is NOT the anwser.
the counter argument is that it is forcing attention away from other micro so as to micro the delete. it is an attention loss for the deleting player. still makes heresy valuable. but yeah removing rng doesn't sound like an answer unless there is a defensive tech to add it back in so as to randomly extend the conversion timer before heresy can be researched.
The answer is to remove charge up conversions on buildings.
Done. Finito
@@ottomanpapyrus9365 that fixes some problems people have but not all. There is still the defensive jumping in and out of TCs until one gets insta converts.
Yeah I'm Pro-monk but I can agree to that @@AndrewTheFrank
in low elos people lose monks very easy but in high elo kinda seems op for me
How about every time a monk ungarissons they have 75% faith or something along those lines
Or their faith decays while garisoned
How about limiting the amount of monks you can make to a maximum of 5 at a time?
Wouldn't adding more techs to get Monks going make Aztec Monks even stronger?
remove all conversion, or double their upgrade costs and triple their own cost / triple upgrade costs and double their own costs
Just before 6 min when he talks about AI monk micro: I remember a time when the AI WOULD go all monks as Aztecs or Slavs, and walk your base down with 100 of then, and that was impossible for me to beat. Aztec AI microed monks.....
What is meant by "overpowered"?
DaveHun seems to be saying monks are not a "dominant strategy" (there are some counters, you can't just blindly always go all monks)
But there are other notions of overpowered like over-centralizing (the meta revolves around them)
Or invalidates a lot of interesting or otherwise-worthwhile strategies
Street Fighter 2X ("Super Turbo") has a dominant character - Akuma - who murders everyone
Akuma is banned in 99.9% of tournaments
It also has a character - Old Sagat - who has some counters but invalidates a chunk of the cast
Old Sagat is generally legal but in some locales (Japan) frowned upon and "soft banned" as a result
The main problem is O.Sagat's excellent projectiles and ability to push players who get close back out into projectile range
Most games that rebalance SF2X (eg SF2 HD Remix and Ultra SF2) heavily nerf Akuma and moderately nerf Old Sagat
In the most obvious SF2 sequel, Street Fighter 3, projectiles were weakened dramatically in response to characters like Old Sagat
This despite O.Sagat being only the 4th or so best character
It's possible to have something which is so overpowered it disrupts any other line of play and needs to be nerfed or banned (or accepted as the core of what the game is about)
It's also possible to have something which is "overpowered" because it counters too many strategies (but not all)
What about keeping the conversion-range, but gating it behind a faith-meter.
Lets say the monk starts with Faith active and a faith-meter of 0%. Means it converts a unit in 8 seconds everytime.
Slowly over time while the monk does not try to convert anything, the meter rises from 0 to 100%.
0% means conversion time 8 secs, 100% means conversion time 4 secs.
Once a unit is converted the monk needs to recharge faith (just like now). Once faith is up, the meter starts at 0 again.
This way one could balance around time the meter needs to fill up.
To make it not frustrating the opponent has to be able to see the state of the faith-meter of a monk - this way he knows how much time the enemy monk will need to convert his units - and if he waits with the engage, the time will get shorter.
Units like light cav or eagles just get a flat conversion resistance, which extends the minimum and maximum range by x% (
22:09 Love TTL and the format, but season 3's map pool wasn't great. As you say a lot of the maps leaned towards monks and light cav. Conversely, how much archer, xbow play did we see.
Idea : replace rng with proportion - more hp make harder to convert.
interesting idea but changes some of the current relationships monks hold with units. could make conversion classes. Like an easy, medium and hard which are all different static timers. Teutons would effectively push every unit to the next tier up.
@@AndrewTheFrank it depends of how proportion would have value. But certainly it will make cross and skirms convert really fast, as low hp, but will take time to convert slow elephants.
@@Deder555 maybe but i think the big thing people complain about is that they know the average conversion is about 8 seconds, but any time a conversion happens faster they kind of call BS. First I think what people would prefer is that the minimum conversion be changed to be about the current average time. Then some random rng extension from that.
but that kind of goes to a point davehun was saying. is that people lose to monks because they go in assuming the monks wont convert. they get unlucky and they lose. where if they waited for a few more units they over power regardless.
It is basically if you fight monks assuming they will never convert then you're asking to be converted and lose. if you assuming they will consume a certain number then you need to be strong enough to still win despite the loss.
I do think something needs to change but not sure what or how.
And researching more Monastery techs for Monks make easier to convert
Why doesn't AoE have unit restriction options? You should be able to disable monks if you don't want them in your game.
"we should be able to disable a rook whenever we want to" is all I here
Yeah, and that's good.@@ottomanpapyrus9365
I think Monks should be unable to garnison into tc because that is making them op in defense. Also I would like to see change in which monks require redempion to convert enemy's ships.
I think garrison would be fine if they have their faith decay while garissoned, or come out with 75% or something. My main issue also is people popping in and out to defend
Every unit can garrison in tc lol except siege
@@ottomanpapyrus9365 No one said otherwise
oh yeha and cav@@Brigand17
My solution on how to fix monks:
1. Fix the conversion time at halway between the current fastest and slowest possible time
2. Give all civs heresy for free on arriving to castle age
3. Increase their heal rate to promote them being a SUPPORT unit, not a standalone offensive unit
probably give everyone access to heresy. One way to potentially make them more of a support is to do things such as lower their range and drastically increase their recharge time.
Also many of their abilities can be locked behind techs and many techs can be split unto multiple techs. meaning for them to be strong, kind of how they are now, would require more resources and time and would require either another monastery to be built or clog up monk training. This alone should help to weaken some monk play by making it more of an investment.
9:00 Yes the fact that everyone starts with light cav can be a proof that monks are so proeminent that the meta has been distorted into "You must counter the monks first, and then you can tech into your strategy.".
The fact that they have a counter doesn't mean that they're balanced. For example ask the devs to change monks so that they need 100seconds to convert a light cav, but they instantly convert everything even castles and TCs from 50 tiles away. They now have an even harder counter unit, but they're now obviously completely broken and op anyway.
They are not countering the monks, they are countering relics
I think Monks can appear to be OP but for the most part they are situational and certainly counterable. With the exception of block printing, I think that tech is OP, at least for to current cost. It’s basically the first thing any monk player will click upon reaching Imp, and does more or less negate all siege and cav.
As a beginner I feel like the mechanics and the randomness are the frustrating part. If they were somehow less annoying to micro and 100% consistent, I would maybe like them more and use them more.
The RNG makes sense, Conversions IRL would be different from person to person that they were converting
@@ottomanpapyrus9365 You mean just like it making sense that hitting a building with a sword makes it catch fire?
Arson does that to buildings, yes@@nilsp9426
@@ottomanpapyrus9365 Conversions IRL wouldn't happen on the battlefield AT ALL. Monk conversions are an arcade disturbance in the game
what do you suggest then? That Monks upon standing near proximity of vills auto converts them after five seconds? WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION?!@@uploader-de7614
Imo monk should have fixed time to convert unit (and no charging of coversion by target swapping) - those 2 will fix most of the frustration from monks atm.
And at the same time, time to convert can differ unit by unit. Instead of just some units having conversion resistance, make every unit have certain "time it takes to be converted". So whatever monk should be strong enough should have shorter conversion time, what is supposed to counter monk have longer. But maybe even have other factors mixed in, like unit speed and costs. Having this option of different conversion time from unit by unit (it doesnt have to mean every unit has some unique time, it can just be like 3-4 "tiers" of conversion speed to make it streamlined and more understandable) would give nice tool for future balancing. Civ bonuses etc for conversion resistance would instead globally increase the time for conversion by x%.
Exactly
I spoke with a controller player after it switched me over to his channel when someone I was watching raided him.
His take was that monks are easier on controllers/paddles since you can more easily shift click *OFF/OUT* a monk from a control group, to then move your monk-mass to the next unit and just convert a whole army without your monks losing all of their stuff on the same unit (since you're microing faster).
For monks healing I simply think that monks healing other monks needs to be nerfed... I think healing villes and monks should be slower (maybe 33% slower & 50% slower respectively). Converting a unit then healing a ville that's building a castle for example, is just too much I would argue. Spending 4-6 hundred gold for monks and 1000 food on villes for the past while is just like a knight + siege/skirm composition except that you're losing your knights and your skirms deal no damage (except to the monks essentially) and monks only a need a few techs, which are already cheap... then you only need loom for villes unless you're Incas and maybe want infantry armour or something. Your upgrades are just scaling so cheaply with these units is another part of the 'early monks' are too good.
At what elo do Monks get good, becuase they dont really exist up to 1200 ELO, which is the majority of players. The only use is on defence against Knights in a walled base, thats pretty much it. Lets try not to balance the game for the few at the cost to the many.
1. If they're not played then changing them will not affect the players who don't play them, so it will never be "at the cost of the many".
2. All games that base their visibility on their esports aspect must balance the game for the competitive scene first, and then make it playable for the casuals. You're wishing for the opposite of what companies want. It will never happen.
One day 1200 elo player would learn how to micro and would realise, that monks (or some other unit) are op. It doesn't make sense to balance game for noobs, because they can't use units with full potential
There should be two type of monks coming out of monasteries.
1- Monks that can convert
2- Monks that can heal and pick relics
Single unit doing so much stuff is bonkers. Every unit in Aoe is supposed to do one thing work or fight, not both.
Cheaper Faith solves all of this how often does anyone ever research faith
T-West
If there was no rng, the non-monk-player would always perfectly know if it better to retreat or to attack the monk. So on a high level, monks would be a lot less useful. Or do I misunderstand something?
But Vipy, intsa conversions happen to everyone....Once you make the conversion time exact - everything will be a counter to monks.
well either everything will counter monks or monks will counter just about everything. and there will be little to no middle ground. but that is the nature of game balance. if something is good enough to use its the only thing you want to use. if it isn't then you never want to use it.
Directly comparing a castle production to monastery production is a false comparison. That's a 650 stone production building with a 200 second build time compared to a 175 wood 40 seconds.
Still first available in Castle age
The issue I foresee with making monks more consistent is you could end up in a situation where some units are just unusable entirely, while others are a hard counter to monks, because you know with 100% certainty they'll win. Having some degree of randomness there is a good thing, as it reduces the extent to which the game can be 'solved'. It forces players to play it safer, which keeps the game from turning into a pure competition of micro vs micro.
I think most problem areas of monks are the exploity bits. For example, garrisoning a monk repeatedly to farm for a fast conversion while being perfectly safe. Maybe a conversion *attempt* should use up some portion of a monk's faith, to make players be a bit more judicious in how they attempt conversions, and reward players for escaping the attempt.
You mean that they would finally work as proper unit in the game, meaning have proper counters and not randomly get few light cavs for no reason? I don't see how being more able to judge how fight will go is a bad thing, as literally every other unit works that way.
@@Lokalo1 monks aren't a standard unit in this game. They are one of the things that make this game more interesting than other games
@demiserofd well i kind of disagree. There are mostly just xbow or knights as so called standard units then and monks counter one big time. Also "monks make this game more fun" perhaps to you, for me and many mt friends monks are exact reason why games are boring and so boomy
@@Lokalo1No, not every other fight works that way. Not every unit has 100% accuracy. For example, treb wars are inconsistent.
Another example is siege fights, where ground attacks can lead to different outcomes based on how close the attack ground was to the actual unit(s).
Microing in an archer fight changes the outcome, pathing melee units a certain way helps their fights as well.
And then there’s the maps themselves that no matter what have a bit of difference (“randomness” if you will) that can dictate how fights are played out.
I think this is one of the best arguments. Monks simply make some units unplayable. It was a cool idea to add all kinds of different elephants to the game but their hard counter was in the game from inception. Any kind of monk play from anyone can hard shut it down.
These thought alone has had me thinking for a while that monks either shouldn't be able to convert or should need a tech for it. Instead they should work as a debuff against enemy units.
Maybe reducing the rng range even more?
Hum, my biggest problems with monks is one that he didn't give enough arguments for me. Which is how RNG they are. Assuming 2 players of similar skill + similar army (including monks) go to battle. One can argue that the one with better monk RNG will win the fight. And that fight might decide a game. And I think that's what a lot of people hate. The fact that a game can be decide on RNG rather then purely skill.
Would it help, if the range of monks converting an elephant got halfed?
Wouldn't that make elephants op?
@@AzuSwe I dont know. I mean they are still very slow, have high costs.
Another idea would be to give them a little bit more conversion resistence - as if you already researched faith (if we do that, the civs should lose the option to research faith because that would be to much).
No it would not Help. Itbwould make elephants insanely OP.
The elephants would quickly become a meta pick for any civs that can run it since all you'd need is nearly ANY ranged support alongside your elephants and the monks would never get a chance.
i.e. Your opponent goes elephants and skirms with some siege mixed in. Even if the monk had the "generous" half range of 5, the skirms (or siege if mangonel line) could easily pick them off before said 5 second minimum conversion time would elapse.
Love the video. I would say that monks are not OP. Monks are annoying. Players want to fight with armies, not with magic, this is not AoM. It's a fun gimmick but shouldn't be meta.
That being said, monk strategy is not thst common on my ELO so it doesn't bother me except when watching tournaments
You know Monks are a historical unit right??
You're implying Monks are a part of the mythilogical ethos?
I think for balance reasons one think shoudl be considert by the dev´s:
Line of sight!
in AoE2 (as fat as my noobbrain know´s) most ranged Units have a line of sight equal as their usual range, - dont know if Britons Crossbow are varing (do they get extra LoS with extra Range?)
This Link between LoS and Range is why Trebs are so great for looking over walls, kappa - which could be changed too in my Opinion.
Monks play might be nerfed by reducing their line of sight, additional to the conversion RNG.
Monks might not be OP, but they do mould the game around them in a way that I think is unfun.
i find this video talked about the broad strengths and weaknesses and the role of the unit as the criteria for whether it was OP.
when i see hera talk about the OPness of the monk and his proposed nerfs, he thinks the numbers are too favorable. none of that was covered in this video. for example block printing costing so little is pretty insane, as well as redemption paying off in 1 conversion of a mangonel. faith and heresy are preventatively expensive.
it also bothered me when davehun talked about that it was a "support unit" and it was op because it was mixed into powerful combos or whatever like walls, xbows, pike siege. but support units can be overtuned just like any other, coming from dota supports get nerfed all the time so this line of thought didnt make any sense.
i think you can dial monk play back a little without changing any of the points davehun made in his video.
now as a scrub do i think that should happen? not a clue lmao, but i feel like hera's points werent disputed here.
I know he literally ignored so many problems people have with monks and the things he stated were just bad. The main thing like people going scouts and not monks in arena. Why do you think they wont go for knights? MONKS DUHHHH so the only option they got is Scouts since spear mobility sucks. Then again using arena monk play just a bad example since most people dont really complain about monks in arena but in other maps.
this.
Ironically the background game shows davehun making a monk army supported by a few other units lmao
Why is mr yo known for getting insta conversions?
in order to understand how powerful the monk is you should look how many units the monks can counter to. it counters a lot. that is why they need nerf.
The light-calv-on-1v1-arena meta is PROVE that monks are strong there, not a disprove. Blindly going for the best counter is prove monks are strong. But it also shows two things. 1: there exists a counter that reliably works 2: monks need certain circumstances to really shine, and those circumstances don't come as a surprise to the players.
Note on 27:18: I'm sure TheViper literally - by the letter - means instant when he says instant here xD
Well I didnt watch any competitiv AoE2 since last year and I'm currently watching the Warlords II competition and yea... Beside open maps with possible early aggression, its usually all about fast castle into monk lightcav.
With high level micro, Monks just counter anything you can do in castle age, you cant make knight, you cant make siege units, you cant make unique units, anything slightly expensiv is at risk to be converted. Also crossbow are basically gone. So yea... They are stuck with lightcav play to counter monks until they can go imp then treb/bombard canon push. And thats kind of boring to watch sometime honestly. It just feel kind of awkward to see battles of 10 monks vs 10 monks with some trash units runing around, it just become a random fuckfest if the two players have the same level of micro.
They seriously have to rethink the monk, it must keep the purpose of a support unit, not feel like an unstopable killing machine that just counter anything beside trash units.
On the topic of units that snowball the game out of control, if people have an issue with monks, why have mangonels or later on onagers been left untouched.
Sure they require micro to function, if you miss the shot they are in most situations dead but again taking the AI comparison in mind, in an perfect AI vs AI u wouldn't need monks..u wouldn't need other military, u would just need onagers.
The question remains: if a player is really good at microing their onagers, should that be enough for them to just win games?
I lean toward no, I'm biased cause I'm not a fan of siege, they tend to snowball games out of control just like monks can but in a much more detrimental way.
But I don't know what the solution should be, personally I would like them to just be more cumbersome to use and not outright flatten armies at a time. But it's not a popular opinion.
Good point; I agree, the RNG needs to go
AT BEST monks are OP amongst top players. they definitely aren't on the ELO levels that 95% of the players are at.
yes, competitive play is important for the health of the game. but so is casual play. there needs to be somewhat of a balance betwen catering to either group
As a viewer it's fun to watch Monk play in part because of the RNG. But I do see how frustrating it could be to play and that it can be unfair, which doesn't feel fun.