umeu wrote:@
Goodspeed first you say that garjas idea can only be achieved by standardization. Then you say they will become too specialized (which is a bad thing why, even if it was true?)
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.
I dont think civs are viable only on one type of map and not on the other.
Then that is where we fundamentally disagree. I agree that not all civs would have this problem, for the record, but many would. You seem to think the significance of the match up in deciding the game’s result outweighs the NTP vs TP factor, and I disagree. Often, civs that are strong on TP maps are much weaker on NTP maps, especially against civs that do naturally well there.
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.
Now, will you ever see Dutch on a TP map or Germans on NTP? Probably not.
So you will never see this match up again. This is what I mean when I say civs would be too specialized, and that you would see 2 separate metagames. Along with Dutch, there will be other civs who are good on NTP and bad on TP, and you will never see them play Germans anymore because Germans will not be picked on NTP. This is one example but there would be many. And eventually, you will end up balancing 2 separate games. The NTP game, and the TP game. Effectively you will have halved the civ pool for both games.
But i find it curious u raise this as criticism against what garja proposes, even though its more clearly a consequence of your approach than of his. In your attampt to make each civ balanced on standardized tp maps, and by not attempting to do the same on no tp or other dominant map features, you are getting exactly that situation where because iro was too strong on tp but fine on ntp you nerfed it, but the now iro is bad to ok on tp, and just terrible on ntp.
My criticism is that Garja’s approach splits the civs into camps, which I was illustrating. This criticism isn’t applicable to our approach because we are not splitting the civs into camps, we are balancing for a specific map type (1 camp) and accepting the outliers.
Because you failed or refused to consider how the crate nerf was going to affect iro play on ntp and water maps, despite my repeated warnings. First iro on ntp could always open farm + first farm up, and sometimes market as well. Now they can only sometimes start farm, and you can just forget about the rest.
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.
Sure you would have different metas, but thats already the case.
It’s not supposed to be the case. The average hunt TP map meta should include all civs, and if it doesn’t then we have work to do.
And i dont see why that is a problem.
Because it would split the civs into camps, as I explained.
But the fact that people either fail to understand or fail to accept this, is why ppl say oh, this civ isnt viable on tp, or so bad blabla. But thats because they try to play on no tp maps the same way as on tp maps, which isnt possible for most civs. Then they fail to win and think its because their civ is bad on that map, while instead their strat is bad on that map. Thats a huge difference.
I agreed with you that part of it is psychological, and an unwillingness to adapt. But can you just admit that there is a difference in a civ’s strength between TP and NTP maps? For some civs this difference is not small.
And its why your gamemode analogy doesnt hold. Its not about japan being op in treaty and useless in dm, and just accepting that. Its about ppl trying to play japan the same way in dm as they would in treaty, and then complain that japan sux in dm... (I mean apparantly japan does suck in dm, but the differences between the game modes are so much bigger that your analogy fails just cuz of that.)
The analogy illustrates my point. I’m glad you understood it, then. I know it’s more extreme than the reality in NTP vs TP maps, that’s why it’s an analogy. But the issue is still there. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but our approach remains to balance the civs for the average resource TP map (not high resource, as Diarouga says. On high resource maps there are other outliers).
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?
), would split the EP community even more + keep in mind that Mitoe/Garja/Umeu agree on disagreeing with the current EP policy. I'm sure that if they were to create a patch they'd disagree on a lot of thing (just because nobody agrees with garja in general, and because from what I know Umeu and Mitoe don't have the same vision of the game at all), so sticking to this is the best way, because of this, and because it's the only "objective" balance criteria since "dynamic balance" by definition can't be controled and you can't know whether a civ is balanced or not. RE went for the dynamic balanced and the result wasn't great.
