Adding additional Map-Sets

[Goodspeed]

Ah I was wondering where those posts were from @momuuu, sadly I seem to have missed that thread due to a vacation.

[momuuu]

Ah I was wondering where those posts were from @momuuu, sadly I seem to have missed that thread due to a vacation.

I read it back and it was a bit sad. Felt like I was bringing up reasoning and then getting attacked for using the word "i" too much. Thought those two quotes were good ways to phrase what I still think so I decided to save myself the effort of retyping them.

[deleted_user0]

Yes, real “dynamic balance” can only be achieved by standardization, unless you allow the civs to be specialized and allow the development of 2 separate metagames and consider that “balanced”. I don't think that, in doing so, you have achieved balance, but that’s an opinion.

The vague use of metagame is going to cause confusion further down the line. So you should clarify this before I can even write a response.


1) Why can dynamic balance only be achieved by standardization?
2) How can claim 1) be reconciled with the claim that it can also be achieved by specialization if you are willing to accept to separate metagames (and what does metagame mean in the context)

[[Armag] diarouga]

...
He's explained it at least 10 times now.

[deleted_user0]

...
He's explained it at least 10 times now.

then link me the posts. because clearly i missed it.

anyway, it doesnt matter. GS already said hes not willing to change, so there is no point trying to convince him he is wrong, or show him that he misunderstands pretty much everything that I have said so far, and has countered it only with vague and empty concepts that mean very little unless you clearly define them, which he hasnt.

so we might as well end it here.

[Garja]

Yea because you're famous for your game knowledge lol.
I am? I mean, it's my word against yours and those of my haters. I don't care.

HP is one of the maps which have the most hunts lol, so of course it has more hunts than Manchuria or Kamchatka, what's your point?
My point is that you put them on the same level and thus in the same group but they are very different from each other and they favor different civs accordingly. It's the same thing as TP and NTP.


Do you realize what you're just saying? Try to think dude, you can't just say that Brits don't rely on high hunts because manors cost wood, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. No wonder people don't take your seriously after such bs opinions, you're basically unable of having any logical opinion.
And here we go again. I post an articulated reasoning and you reduce it to "Brits don't rely on high hunts because manors cost wood". I can only conclude that you either do it on purpose or simply your lack the logic necessary to understand a slightly more than basic reasoning.
Think about it, Brits save food for their vills because they get it from wood, it's a fact. So compared to a number of civs (not all in fact) they do need partially less food. Other mechanics of course contribute to food depletion: Brits still relies a lot on producing units rather getting them from shipments or other mechanic; cost ratio is another element. Still it doesn't change the fact that, especially on low eco games, they save a substantial amount of food thanks to manors.
This doesn't mean they don't enjoy high hunt maps. It simply means that the hunt argument is over-used and leads to simplifications. One concrete implication of this is assuming by default that Brits are not viable on Klondike or Cascade Range.

I was mentioning food because, fortunately, most maps have 2 mines in base, so it's not an issue with the current maps. Food is however.
2 mines tho, is above the needed amount of pretty much any civ. It's just a gift of the earliest ESOC maps and that was then unfairly assumed as a standard. And in fact it led to some concrete imbalances such as Ger/Fre being top civ for long and in general, semi FF play being relatively more advantageous.
Mine scarcity is potentially one thing that tend to counterbalance the hunt scarcity but that has been completely ignored. Thankfully newest maps are tying to take that into account.



I think the opposite. To balance the game, we need people who can think theorically and find the best way to play theorically, rather than people who do random stuff and end up losing to captains because they're obscessed with a strat which doesn't work.
Idle time is a very much theoretical concept and it also has practical implications. What really doens't work is, for example, to suppose that VC without a TP gives any tangible advantage to Brits compared to the normal build, because of some arbitrary calculations on paper.

As I said in the other thread, honestly you're notorious for having unreasonable opinion when the game is concerned, so eventhough I have my weak points and my bias as you claimed, I think that I'm much more capable of working on the EP than you.
There is a diffeence between unreasonable and unpopular and I'm very proud of having unpopular opinions when popular opinions at the moment are all meta based.
You know, it's like thinking that pop music sucks when everyone seems to like it.
You are more capable on working on this EP with this shit phylosophy, I give you that. In fact I carefully stay away from claiming any contribution to certain balance changes like teepee aura or Dutch 5th bank, or supposed better balance on a restricted map pool.

I don't give a shit about its name, call it easy maps if you want.
And again, I don't know if you do this on purpose or what. The problem isn't the name is the concept of that specific map set.

[[Armag] diarouga]

As I said, I'm totally fine with new mapsets except for having one that claims to be the competitive one, when in fact it excludes lot of maps that are competitive

.
I was answering to this.
You say you're fine with new mapsets unless they claim to be the competitive mapset, apparently you're not lol.

Try to be more consistent Caria, it's getting boring.

[Garja]

Changing the name, doesn't change the claim, you genius
Basically the rated status is the problem. If you want that map set make a custom one and call it Diarouga maps.

[Goodspeed]

Yes, real “dynamic balance” can only be achieved by standardization, unless you allow the civs to be specialized and allow the development of 2 separate metagames and consider that “balanced”. I don't think that, in doing so, you have achieved balance, but that’s an opinion.

The vague use of metagame is going to cause confusion further down the line. So you should clarify this before I can even write a response.
1) Why can dynamic balance only be achieved by standardization?
2) How can claim 1) be reconciled with the claim that it can also be achieved by specialization if you are willing to accept to separate metagames (and what does metagame mean in the context)

That's what the continuation of my post (attempts to) clarif(y)(ies).
We have both been repeating ourselves for some time now, so let's leave it at that.

[[Armag] diarouga]

There are 2 issues with this:
1) I can't play rated on it
2) If I make such a set, considering it's a set of custom maps, people would have to download it first.

Anyway, I don't care about the claim either. You can call it easy maps and claim it's the set of maps a part of the community prefers.

[deleted_user0]

Yes, real “dynamic balance” can only be achieved by standardization, unless you allow the civs to be specialized and allow the development of 2 separate metagames and consider that “balanced”. I don't think that, in doing so, you have achieved balance, but that’s an opinion.

The vague use of metagame is going to cause confusion further down the line. So you should clarify this before I can even write a response.
1) Why can dynamic balance only be achieved by standardization?
2) How can claim 1) be reconciled with the claim that it can also be achieved by specialization if you are willing to accept to separate metagames (and what does metagame mean in the context)

That's what the continuation of my post (attempts to) clarif(y)(ies).
We have both been repeating ourselves for some time now, so let's leave it at that.

i have read the rest of your post, it doesnt clarify it, that's why I ask it.

[Goodspeed]

...
He's explained it at least 10 times now.

then link me the posts. because clearly i missed it.

anyway, it doesnt matter. GS already said hes not willing to change, so there is no point trying to convince him he is wrong,

If that's your attitude in this, I don't know why I indulge you.
We chose an approach because we think it's the right one, and of course we're not going to throw it all out the window because 2 people argue for a different one.

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

Yes, real “dynamic balance” can only be achieved by standardization, unless you allow the civs to be specialized and allow the development of 2 separate metagames and consider that “balanced”. I don't think that, in doing so, you have achieved balance, but that’s an opinion.

The vague use of metagame is going to cause confusion further down the line. So you should clarify this before I can even write a response.
1) Why can dynamic balance only be achieved by standardization?
2) How can claim 1) be reconciled with the claim that it can also be achieved by specialization if you are willing to accept to separate metagames (and what does metagame mean in the context)

That's what the continuation of my post (attempts to) clarif(y)(ies).
We have both been repeating ourselves for some time now, so let's leave it at that.

i have read the rest of your post, it doesnt clarify it, that's why I ask it.

I guess I wasn't as clear as I thought, then. This is probably my fault, since it happens a lot.

1) Because without standardizing, civs will rely on TPs to varying degrees.
2) From what I understood, Garja considers the game balanced as long as a civ has a balanced selection of match ups (they win about the same amount as they lose) across all maps. This means that, because of (1), in order to keep the civs unique but also achieve this balance, many of them will be unviable on one map type and viable on the other. This because, due to (1), making them viable on both map types is in many cases not possible.

It's pretty clear where we disagree. You think changes exist that make (almost) all civs viable on both map types. In my opinion, for some civs this is true, but for the majority it isn't.

[Garja]

There are 2 issues with this:
1) I can't play rated on it
2) If I make such a set, considering it's a set of custom maps, people would have to download it first.

Anyway, I don't care about the claim either. You can call it easy maps and claim it's the set of maps a part of the community prefers.

Which raises the correlated problem of why there should be a rated pool for a specific part of the user base.

[Goodspeed]

On the other hand, if there is a good number of people who want it, why the shit not?

[Garja]

Because for each pool some people want there is another pool with slightly different map selection that other people want.

[Goodspeed]

Okay. Who else wants a new map pool and can agree on the content? If they come in large enough numbers, I don't know why we wouldn't give it to them.

[deleted_user0]

Show hidden quotes

Yes, real “dynamic balance” can only be achieved by standardization, unless you allow the civs to be specialized and allow the development of 2 separate metagames and consider that “balanced”. I don't think that, in doing so, you have achieved balance, but that’s an opinion.

The vague use of metagame is going to cause confusion further down the line. So you should clarify this before I can even write a response.
1) Why can dynamic balance only be achieved by standardization?
2) How can claim 1) be reconciled with the claim that it can also be achieved by specialization if you are willing to accept to separate metagames (and what does metagame mean in the context)

That's what the continuation of my post (attempts to) clarif(y)(ies).
We have both been repeating ourselves for some time now, so let's leave it at that.

i have read the rest of your post, it doesnt clarify it, that's why I ask it.

I guess I wasn't as clear as I thought, then. This is probably my fault, since it happens a lot.

1) Because without standardizing, civs will rely on TPs to varying degrees.
2) From what I understood, Garja considers the game balanced as long as a civ has a balanced selection of match ups (they win about the same amount as they lose) across all maps. This means that, because of (1), in order to keep the civs unique but also achieve this balance, many of them will be unviable on one map type and viable on the other. This because, due to (1), making them viable on both map types is in many cases not possible.

It's pretty clear where we disagree. You think changes exist that make (almost) all civs viable on both map types. In my opinion, for some civs this is true, but for the majority it isn't.

Yes, I can see that. But why can only standardization achieve that? This doesn't follow. You can make civ totally unique, which I guess is what you mean with point 2), and you are somehow opposed to (though I don't really understand why) but you can also just work on the unique features that already exist in aoe3 and enhance them without making the civ "specialized" in that they can do only 1 thing or play only on 1 map type.

Has it even been attempted to make civs viable on both map types? Have any of the changes that have been put forward that can potentially do this even been tried? If not, then why are you so quick to dismiss the impossibility? It seems less a matter of impossible and more a matter of not interested.

And still, my question about what you mean with different metagames will be created on different maps by dynamic balance that doesn't involve standardization has not been explained, which was my main question.

[Goodspeed]

You can make civ totally unique, which I guess is what you mean with point 2), and you are somehow opposed to (though I don't really understand why) but you can also just work on the unique features that already exist in aoe3 and enhance them without making the civ "specialized" in that they can do only 1 thing or play only on 1 map type.

The reason I’m opposed to it, and I’ve mentioned this many, many times now, is that I don’t believe it possible to balance (most of) the civs on both map types. That inevitably means they will end up specialized towards one of them.

Has it even been attempted to make civs viable on both map types? Have any of the changes that have been put forward that can potentially do this even been tried? If not, then why are you so quick to dismiss the impossibility? It seems less a matter of impossible and more a matter of not interested.

We do what we can, as mentioned. It’s a matter of not interested because impossible. Cause and effect. Outside of nerfing TPs into irrelevance, it isn’t possible. Maybe instead of repeating that it is possible, and repeating that I’m somehow not being clear (I really, really think I am) you should come up with some examples of changes that would have the desired effect.

And still, my question about what you mean with different metagames will be created on different maps by dynamic balance that doesn't involve standardization has not been explained, which was my main question.

I think it has been. I don’t know how to put it in a way that I haven’t already.
Because imo balancing them on both map types isn’t possible, civs will be balanced on 1 map type and not balanced on the other. You are then effectively splitting them into camps. You would have 2 separate metagames involving 2 different civ selections.

Is it not clear by now that where we disagree is that you think we can balance civs on both map types and I don’t?

[deleted_user0]

You can make civ totally unique, which I guess is what you mean with point 2), and you are somehow opposed to (though I don't really understand why) but you can also just work on the unique features that already exist in aoe3 and enhance them without making the civ "specialized" in that they can do only 1 thing or play only on 1 map type.

The reason I’m opposed to it, and I’ve mentioned this many, many times now, is that I don’t believe it possible to balance (most of) the civs on both map types. That inevitably means they will end up specialized towards one of them.

Has it even been attempted to make civs viable on both map types? Have any of the changes that have been put forward that can potentially do this even been tried? If not, then why are you so quick to dismiss the impossibility? It seems less a matter of impossible and more a matter of not interested.

We do what we can, as mentioned. It’s a matter of not interested because impossible. Cause and effect. Outside of nerfing TPs into irrelevance, it isn’t possible. Maybe instead of repeating that it is possible, and repeating that I’m somehow not being clear (I really, really think I am) you should come up with some examples of changes that would have the desired effect.

And still, my question about what you mean with different metagames will be created on different maps by dynamic balance that doesn't involve standardization has not been explained, which was my main question.

I think it has been. I don’t know how to put it in a way that I haven’t already.
Because imo balancing them on both map types isn’t possible, civs will be balanced on 1 map type and not balanced on the other. You are then effectively splitting them into camps. You would have 2 separate metagames involving 2 different civ selections.

Is it not clear by now that where we disagree is that you think we can balance civs on both map types and I don’t?

i see that you think that. But your previous post completely misrepresented my point about balance. I want to respond to it, but I can't because you keep being vague about key points. You can repeat it 10 more times, but you still don't really clarify it.

I said before, that there already are different meta's on tp and ntp maps, and this is not an issue. The ntp meta is shifted more towards age2 play, agression and defending while trying to get away with greed. While the TP meta is more about semi ff and ff's while being as greedy as possible as well. Why is it a problem that the meta on ntp is bow pike and the tp meta is cav/musk semi? Those are 2 camps by your reasoning, but I completely fail to see your point, why are they suddenly 2 camps, and why is that a bad thing in that sense, even if it were true.

Say you have Dutch and Germans on RE patch. Dutch was good on NTP, bad on TP maps. Germans was good on TP, bad on NTP maps. According to your “dynamic balance”, this is fine. So there is no reason to change them.

No, if you had read my post, I said that this would not be fine. I said it's fine if within the mu, german wins on tp and dutch wins on ntp, that's fine. But it's not fine if Dutch wins all/most ntp mus and loses most tp mus. On both tp and ntp maps, it should be the case that dutch, or any other civ has mostly fair (50/50) mu's while there are obviously also outliers as you have said already, where they either win or lose, which might in some cases be triggered by the map type, and thus it's possible that there are mu's they win on ntp that they will lose on tp. So there are no camps as you keep talking about.

There are simply so many things that can be done to balance civs on both maps that you are NOT WILLING to try. Ofcourse if you eliminate all those options, then it's not possible. But it's not impossible per se, it's just impossible because you discard the options before trying them out.

Have you forgotten how OP Iro is on RE? They were so strong, as you illustrate here, that despite their reliance on TPs they were still good on NTP maps. There was no possible change that would balance them on both map types. Your repeated insisting that these changes exist show where we disagree, because that is why you think an approach like Garja’s would be viable and I don’t.

I have given examples already on how to balance Iro on both map types. This hasn't even been tried, even though it's a much better solution than the -200w +100f shenanigans that the patch has been messing around with so far. And it increases the strategic options instead of limiting them drastically. Ofc iro had to be nerfed on tp maps, but they werent op or too strong on ntp. Your nerf however ensured that iro was nerfed on both, while my suggestion ensures that iro is only nerfed on one map type. If such a solution exists for a civ that was perceived to be a very tp dependent civ, and it's possible to keep balance on both map types, then it stands to reason that if you are willing to be a bit more creative with the changes, that there are more of such solutions available in the game. at least in theory, ofc we won't know until it has been tried.

And because this solution enhances iro's unique civ bonus, it actually makes the civs more unique, without making them viable only on one map type or the other as a spacialized civ. Your argument of standardization thus fails.

With our approach in mind, and knowing it’s not going to change, do you still disagree that an average TP map pool would be beneficial?

idc about this silly map pool. if you want more map pools and its easy to do, you shouldve just released it with the next upgrade instead this poll.

[Goodspeed]

I said before, that there already are different meta's on tp and ntp maps, and this is not an issue. The ntp meta is shifted more towards age2 play, agression and defending while trying to get away with greed. While the TP meta is more about semi ff and ff's while being as greedy as possible as well. Why is it a problem that the meta on ntp is bow pike and the tp meta is cav/musk semi? Those are 2 camps by your reasoning, but I completely fail to see your point, why are they suddenly 2 camps, and why is that a bad thing in that sense, even if it were true.

There are 2 camps because you are splitting the civs. By not pursuing what we are currently pursuing (that all civs are playable on the most average map type), civs will become either playable on TP maps or on NTP maps. Because it’s one or the other in many cases, you are splitting the civs into camps.
It’s astounding the amount of times I have to repeat this very simple point. Maybe it’s not getting through to you because you think all civs can be viable on both map types, which, again, is where we fundamentally disagree.

On both tp and ntp maps, it should be the case that dutch, or any other civ has mostly fair (50/50) mu's while there are obviously also outliers as you have said already, where they either win or lose, which might in some cases be triggered by the map type, and thus it's possible that there are mu's they win on ntp that they will lose on tp. So there are no camps as you keep talking about.

Once again: in my opinion, this is not possible without standardizing or nerfing TPs into irrelevance. Dare I say it again: I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

There are simply so many things that can be done to balance civs on both maps that you are NOT WILLING to try. Ofcourse if you eliminate all those options, then it's not possible. But it's not impossible per se, it's just impossible because you discard the options before trying them out.

So many things, even. Well, by all means, suggest them. Like I said we are certainly open to changes that balance the civs on NTP maps without detrimental effects to balance on TP maps. We do what we can. I should mention though, that we accepted the outliers and balancing them is not a priority. It’s much more important to us not to standardize, for example.

I have given examples already on how to balance Iro on both map types. This hasn't even been tried, even though it's a much better solution than the -200w +100f shenanigans that the patch has been messing around with so far. And it increases the strategic options instead of limiting them drastically. Ofc iro had to be nerfed on tp maps, but they werent op or too strong on ntp. Your nerf however ensured that iro was nerfed on both, while my suggestion ensures that iro is only nerfed on one map type. If such a solution exists for a civ that was perceived to be a very tp dependent civ, and it's possible to keep balance on both map types, then it stands to reason that if you are willing to be a bit more creative with the changes, that there are more of such solutions available in the game. at least in theory, ofc we won't know until it has been tried.

And because this solution enhances iro's unique civ bonus, it actually makes the civs more unique, without making them viable only on one map type or the other as a spacialized civ. Your argument of standardization thus fails.

What was this magical suggestion again?

idc about this silly map pool. if you want more map pools and its easy to do, you shouldve just released it with the next upgrade instead this poll.

Then I suggest you start a different thread.

[deleted_user0]

I said before, that there already are different meta's on tp and ntp maps, and this is not an issue. The ntp meta is shifted more towards age2 play, agression and defending while trying to get away with greed. While the TP meta is more about semi ff and ff's while being as greedy as possible as well. Why is it a problem that the meta on ntp is bow pike and the tp meta is cav/musk semi? Those are 2 camps by your reasoning, but I completely fail to see your point, why are they suddenly 2 camps, and why is that a bad thing in that sense, even if it were true.

There are 2 camps because you are splitting the civs. By not pursuing what we are currently pursuing (that all civs are playable on the most average map type), civs will become either playable on TP maps or on NTP maps. Because it’s one or the other in many cases, you are splitting the civs into camps.
It’s astounding the amount of times I have to repeat this very simple point. Maybe it’s not getting through to you because you think all civs can be viable on both map types, which, again, is where we fundamentally disagree.

Say you have Dutch and Germans on RE patch. Dutch was good on NTP, bad on TP maps. Germans was good on TP, bad on NTP maps. According to your “dynamic balance”, this is fine. So there is no reason to change them.

On both tp and ntp maps, it should be the case that dutch, or any other civ has mostly fair (50/50) mu's while there are obviously also outliers as you have said already, where they either win or lose, which might in some cases be triggered by the map type, and thus it's possible that there are mu's they win on ntp that they will lose on tp. So there are no camps as you keep talking about.

Once again: in my opinion, this is not possible without standardizing or nerfing TPs into irrelevance. Dare I say it again: I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

There are simply so many things that can be done to balance civs on both maps that you are NOT WILLING to try. Ofcourse if you eliminate all those options, then it's not possible. But it's not impossible per se, it's just impossible because you discard the options before trying them out.

So many things, even. Well, by all means, suggest them. Like I said we are certainly open to changes that balance the civs on NTP maps without detrimental effects to balance on TP maps. We do what we can. I should mention though, that we accepted the outliers and balancing them is not a priority. It’s much more important to us not to standardize, for example.

I have given examples already on how to balance Iro on both map types. This hasn't even been tried, even though it's a much better solution than the -200w +100f shenanigans that the patch has been messing around with so far. And it increases the strategic options instead of limiting them drastically. Ofc iro had to be nerfed on tp maps, but they werent op or too strong on ntp. Your nerf however ensured that iro was nerfed on both, while my suggestion ensures that iro is only nerfed on one map type. If such a solution exists for a civ that was perceived to be a very tp dependent civ, and it's possible to keep balance on both map types, then it stands to reason that if you are willing to be a bit more creative with the changes, that there are more of such solutions available in the game. at least in theory, ofc we won't know until it has been tried.

And because this solution enhances iro's unique civ bonus, it actually makes the civs more unique, without making them viable only on one map type or the other as a spacialized civ. Your argument of standardization thus fails.

What was this magical suggestion again?

idc about this silly map pool. if you want more map pools and its easy to do, you shouldve just released it with the next upgrade instead this poll.

Then I suggest you start a different thread.

Must I say it again? It's not about disagreeing or agreeing. It's not a philosophical paper about the existence of a non-proveable entity. YOU CAN TRY IT OUT!?! That's what I am saying. But you ignore this the whole time. You say that something is impossible, but you have never tried to find out if it actually is impossible. You are just standing in front of a big canyon, and you say oh well... it's impossible to get to the other side of the canyon. And everytime someone comes with an idea to get to the other side, you dismiss that idea because when something is impossible, why even try? And then you use the fact that you are still at the same side of the canyon as an argument for why it's impossible... it's downright silly.

The suggestion was 2 travois instead of wood. I've explained many times, in multiple threads what the benefits are of this over what you guys have done... And now that we have a beta that's easily accessible, and you are still messing around with iro... perhaps you ought to try the impossible...

it's also funny that you don't want to standardize, but then you are standardizing all over the plane. Sioux and Otto are supposed to become yet another economy civ, instead of economy is in army civ. You have turned an age2 powerhouse into yet another french semi ff clone. China, a civ with a viable FI? Let's make sure that can't happen anymore... India? Let's make them skir goon as well!

[momuuu]

It would be very hard to actually balance for both TP and non-TP maps:

Reaching perfect balance where every match up is 50/50 is basically impossible without standardizing the civs. So then every civ will have some strats that work in different match ups with different winrates (lets assume between 40% and 60%). A good example would be germany; they'd have those winrates against all civs doing uhlan semi FF (which is basically their only viable strat). That strat of course is much weaker without a trading post. So then, for no TP maps, we would need to buff some german style that doesn't use a TP. That'd probably be the xbow pike rush then. So then xbow pike becomes a competitive strat (winrates between 40% and 60% aswell). The problem is that xbow pike will still be reasonably viable on the TP maps: The chances are very big however that xbow pike turns out to be a 50-60% winrate strategy in match ups where the uhlan semi FF is a 40-50% match up. So then, by having two distinct viable strategies, the added flexibility will make a civ stronger still on TP maps than on no TP maps. The result is that any civ that has a very strong TP strategy is very likely going to be stronger on TP maps than on no TP maps just because of the added flexibility (if there is a good no TP strategy at all, otherwise they're obviously also better on TP maps). I don't see how this can reliably be worked around, and given that the balance team is already struggling to get a grasp on balance as is, I think they should just ignore no TP maps entirely.

[deleted_user0]

Ofc perfect balance is impossible in aoe3, wether its on tp maps only, ntp maps only or a combination of both. I accept that point, and so does gs. I also accept that it's harder/takes more time to balance on two maptypes. If they had said we don't have the time to do it, or we are simply not competent to do it because its too hard. I would say that's a shame, but it's understandable. But it just annoys me that people say something is impossible and present it as fact while it hasn't been attempted.

[Goodspeed]

Must I say it again? It's not about disagreeing or agreeing. It's not a philosophical paper about the existence of a non-proveable entity. YOU CAN TRY IT OUT!?! That's what I am saying. But you ignore this the whole time. You say that something is impossible, but you have never tried to find out if it actually is impossible. You are just standing in front of a big canyon, and you say oh well... it's impossible to get to the other side of the canyon. And everytime someone comes with an idea to get to the other side, you dismiss that idea because when something is impossible, why even try? And then you use the fact that you are still at the same side of the canyon as an argument for why it's impossible... it's downright silly.

You can’t “just try it out”. The approach is fundamentally different.

Anyway, to me it’s very clearly impossible. Still I will try any suggestion that improves NTP map balance while not affecting TP map balance. That we are not open to this is false. We are however realistic about the possibilities, and for obvious reasons not interested in suggestions that completely overhaul the direction we took with certain civs.

The suggestion was 2 travois instead of wood. I've explained many times, in multiple threads what the benefits are of this over what you guys have done... And now that we have a beta that's easily accessible, and you are still messing around with Iro... perhaps you ought to try the impossible…

And you really think that, magically, with the double travois change, Iro wouldn’t be reliant on TPs anymore? You’ve explained this many times you said, but you’ll forgive me for having forgotten, we get a lot of suggestions. So, do you mind explaining again how the civ will be balanced on both map types with that change? How is it even that different in effect from what we have done? In neither situation Iro gets the free early TP.

You’re going to have to come up with something that makes a little more sense on paper. To me it seems obvious that, no matter what you do with Iro, they will rely on TPs as a way to invest in economy and therefore be much stronger on TP maps than on NTP maps.

It's also funny that you don't want to standardize, but then you are standardizing all over the plane. Sioux and Otto are supposed to become yet another economy civ, instead of economy is in army civ. You have turned an age2 powerhouse into yet another french semi ff clone. China, a civ with a viable FI? Let's make sure that can't happen anymore… India? Let's make them skir goon as well!

I’ve spent enough time defending those decisions. If you want to know our reasoning you can find it in previous threads. Your feedback is duly noted.