Britons need a rework

[renehvac]

Problem solved. But they still need buffs.

[KingKickAss]

Originally posted by renehvac:

They still need a rework, a buff that is. Haven't you seen their winrate?

So you complained about then being too good, and after people cited how their winrate proves you wrong, you're now calling for buffs? Has this thread really evolved to you needing to be right about something no matter what it is?
If this somehow isn't a troll thread, I don't know what it is at this point lol.

[KaRma]

Originally posted by renehvac:

Originally posted by cM´ | OnlyFlans:

Like you're any more humble? Don't make me laugh. Calling someone bad isn't very humble. Have you even seen a T90 video? He always says "don't get greedy". Thats basically what most of you high elo players do.

yes of course. If a guy with 700 elo more than me says: "You need to add rams" I will never answer with: "11 rams? they get destroyed easily by cav and halb."

That's not humble. You think this civ need a rework because you can't understand that the problem is not the civ, the problem is that you are so bad. A 800 elo player is very bad. If you say: "hi guys, i need some tips for this game", I'm totally sure that everybody would try to help you, but you prefer to discuss. Totally brainless.

They still need a rework, a buff that is. Haven't you seen their winrate? And you call me brainless. Besides, the word "bad" is an opinion. You probably didn't fair well against the Youpudding strategy when it became popular. But does that make you bad? In other words, just stop being a spoiled brat, acting like you're superior to lower elo players just because you have won many games.

My opinion is totally objective. In this game you start with 1000 elo and you have 866, so objectively you are a bad player. In fact, you can see this web: https://ratings.aoe2.se/?team_one=4214226&team_two= and you are in the percentile 33,4% so you are only better than 33% of people, but you are worse than 67%.

[renehvac]

Originally posted by cM´ | OnlyFlans:

Originally posted by renehvac:

They still need a rework, a buff that is. Haven't you seen their winrate? And you call me brainless. Besides, the word "bad" is an opinion. You probably didn't fair well against the Youpudding strategy when it became popular. But does that make you bad? In other words, just stop being a spoiled brat, acting like you're superior to lower elo players just because you have won many games.

My opinion is totally objective. In this game you start with 1000 elo and you have 866, so objectively you are a bad player. In fact, you can see this web: https://ratings.aoe2.se/?team_one=4214226&team_two= and you are in the percentile 33,4% so you are only better than 33% of people, but you are worse than 67%.

That doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion.

[KingKickAss]

Originally posted by renehvac:

Originally posted by cM´ | OnlyFlans:

My opinion is totally objective. In this game you start with 1000 elo and you have 866, so objectively you are a bad player. In fact, you can see this web: https://ratings.aoe2.se/?team_one=4214226&team_two= and you are in the percentile 33,4% so you are only better than 33% of people, but you are worse than 67%.

That doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion.

Balance isn't based on opinion.

[renehvac]

Originally posted by KingKickAss:

Originally posted by renehvac:

That doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion.

Balance isn't based on opinion.

Enough, none of us are getting anywhere. Topic over.

[Sick My Duck]

Britons have huge bonus. Fast sheep collecting at dark, cheap tc at castle, 11 & 12 range archers at imp... And you always have alternative with champ & hallebard full upgrade.
In the worst situation you have decent cav too also.

Onager and cannoners are not a threat if you micromanage your archer correctly. You have more range.

In my opinion they have the best trebuchet of the game with area damage to kill easily ennemies treb and stack of units.

Condo is a very bad option, except if you play vs powder. Condo cost more than champions and are worst. You can sometime play it early imp if you are suprised and you need time to upgrade champion but it's clearly not a good long term tactic.

[James3157]

Originally posted by Sick My Duck:

Britons have huge bonus. Fast sheep collecting at dark, cheap tc at castle, 11 & 12 range archers at imp... And you always have alternative with champ & hallebard full upgrade.
In the worst situation you have decent cav too also.

Onager and cannoners are not a threat if you micromanage your archer correctly. You have more range.

In my opinion they have the best trebuchet of the game with area damage to kill easily ennemies treb and stack of units.

Condo is a very bad option, except if you play vs powder. Condo cost more than champions and are worst. You can sometime play it early imp if you are suprised and you need time to upgrade champion but it's clearly not a good long term tactic.

There is no point in trying to debate about the Britons anymore especially with Renehvac having low elo as well. Renehvac made it clear when saying "Enough, none of us are getting anywhere. Topic over." Britons are balanced (which as mentioned previously by KickKingAss balance is not an opinion) and do not need a buff or nerf. Not every civilization necessarily needs to be buffed to the point of having a 50% winrate or better either on 1v1 multiplayer (although, single player against the AI needs to be taken into an account as well and not only just multiplayer) regardless of how much elo a player has.

[renehvac]

Originally posted by James3157:

Originally posted by Sick My Duck:

Britons have huge bonus. Fast sheep collecting at dark, cheap tc at castle, 11 & 12 range archers at imp... And you always have alternative with champ & hallebard full upgrade.
In the worst situation you have decent cav too also.

Onager and cannoners are not a threat if you micromanage your archer correctly. You have more range.

In my opinion they have the best trebuchet of the game with area damage to kill easily ennemies treb and stack of units.

Condo is a very bad option, except if you play vs powder. Condo cost more than champions and are worst. You can sometime play it early imp if you are suprised and you need time to upgrade champion but it's clearly not a good long term tactic.

There is no point in trying to debate about the Britons anymore especially with Renehvac having low elo as well. Renehvac made it clear when saying "Enough, none of us are getting anywhere. Topic over." Britons are balanced (which as mentioned previously by KickKingAss balance is not an opinion) and do not need a buff or nerf. Not every civilization necessarily needs to be buffed to the point of having a 50% winrate or better either on 1v1 multiplayer (although, single player against the AI needs to be taken into an account as well and not only just multiplayer) regardless of how much elo a player has.

Yeah, but one civ in particular REALLY needs something, and that's the Bengalis. 11 their unique unit is pretty vulnerable.

[James3157]

Originally posted by renehvac:

Yeah, but one civ in particular REALLY needs something, and that's the Bengalis. 11 their unique unit is pretty vulnerable.

While it is possible to underestimate them, I do think that the Bengalis might be one of weakest civs from AoE II: DE not only on multiplayer, but single player as well.

[renehvac]

Originally posted by James3157:

Originally posted by renehvac:

Yeah, but one civ in particular REALLY needs something, and that's the Bengalis. 11 their unique unit is pretty vulnerable.

While it is possible to underestimate them, I do think that the Bengalis might be one of weakest civs from AoE II: DE not only on multiplayer, but single player as well.

Indeed. Basically everything they train is weak against monks, halb, or camel.

[Kasbfaäfad]

Originally posted by renehvac:

Originally posted by James3157:

While it is possible to underestimate them, I do think that the Bengalis might be one of weakest civs from AoE II: DE not only on multiplayer, but single player as well.

Indeed. Basically everything they train is weak against monks, halb, or camel.

They can go helb skirm with their strong eco

[renehvac]

Originally posted by Kasbfaäfad:

Originally posted by renehvac:

Indeed. Basically everything they train is weak against monks, halb, or camel.

They can go helb skirm with their strong eco

Skirmishers and halb get countered by infantry (that is, infantry that isn't the spear-line)

[KingKickAss]

Originally posted by renehvac:

Originally posted by Kasbfaäfad:

They can go helb skirm with their strong eco

Skirmishers and halb get countered by infantry (that is, infantry that isn't the spear-line)

Which will get shredded by the Elephant Archer deathball.

[renehvac]

Originally posted by KingKickAss:

Originally posted by renehvac:

Skirmishers and halb get countered by infantry (that is, infantry that isn't the spear-line)

Which will get shredded by the Elephant Archer deathball.

Elephant archers are like scorpions: you need a large mass in order for them to be effective.

[chaoticbalrog]

Originally posted by renehvac:

Originally posted by KingKickAss:

Which will get shredded by the Elephant Archer deathball.

Elephant archers are like scorpions: you need a large mass in order for them to be effective.

True, but no Elephant Archer is ever fully upgraded. Bengalis don't get Thumb Ring, Gurjaras miss out on Parthian Tactics and Ring Archer Armor, and finally the Dravidians don't get Bloodlines, Husbandry, and Parthian Tactics.