British Discussion Thread

[loloekie10]

@Goodspeed I don't see how 140 wood manors would go against the philosophy of changing civ bonuses. They still get an extra vill with a more expensive house. Besides, you changed french and russia vill costs as well, which would then also be messing with civ bonuses.

[Hazza54321]

youve been changing civ bonuses from the start, what?

[lemmings121]

Making manors 140w, meta changing and against the philosophy.

Giving sioux karni matas and stim pack, creating new cards for spain, fine.


Wtf gs.

[Goodspeed]

@Goodspeed I don't see how 140 wood manors would go against the philosophy of changing civ bonuses. They still get an extra vill with a more expensive house. Besides, you changed french and russia vill costs as well, which would then also be messing with civ bonuses.

We don't like to nerf civ bonuses (nothing wrong with buffing them) because they are what make a civ unique. I know 140w manors is a small change, but it's wrong from a design point of view because you're making the civ bonus weaker and therefore standardizing the civ.
But again, we're not finding good alternatives so we might end up doing it anyway. Germans were a similar case, although there it was an easier decision because uhlans are not really all that unique of a unit (just cav with high attack), and Germans were coping with some bad issues when it came to their army diversity. We didn't directly touch the civ bonus, which many people were actually suggesting, by removing an Uhlan from all shipments.

youve been changing civ bonuses from the start, what?

There are exceptions, but that doesn't stop us from preferring other ways to change a civ.
I explained the German case. Then there's the China fattening rate pre-fortress, but this seemed the only way to fix the issue. That civ bonus made the civ highly map-dependent, plus it's more of a side-bonus anyway. I can't think of another case where we nerfed a civ bonus. If we can buff a civ bonus we do tend to, because it means more variety across civs.

We did nerf some unique units like Abus, BR simply because we felt that these units in their RE form were holding us back from effectively balancing the civs. Leaving BR as is, for example, there is almost nothing you can do to fix Sioux' design problems. BR would always dominate their army comp, much like Uhlans did.

Making manors 140w, meta changing and against the philosophy.

Giving sioux karni matas and stim pack, creating new cards for spain, fine.

Wtf gs.

I didn't say meta changing but yes, it's certainly not an ideal change.
We felt that, as the meta evolves and the maps become more and more balanced, Sioux and Spain need more economic options. It's okay to disagree but it has very little to do with nerfing civ bonuses. In case of teepees and missionaries we are encouraging the use of unique units/buildings which improves civ variety. That's the opposite of standardizing.

Anyway, a bad change or not, I still can't think of anything better than manor cost increase. Removing 4v and 5v was a consideration, but this would be too intrusive to existing Brit builds. Removing 600w is possible, but would likely not have much effect. Lb are strong but not dominant enough in Brit games to nerf them.

[momuuu]

I dont know if you're doing this consciously or not, but basically the defining bottom line on what changes are allowed and what aren't is simply based on your opinion and not much else. You are completely fine with changing just about everything related to sioux, but when someone suggests tweaking a civ that's been the top civ for 3 patches straight it's not okay.

[Mitoe]

I'm not sure I necessarily agree that British is the top civ. If that were the case we would've seen them a lot more in the tournament, but we did not.

The truth of the matter is that British is a very strong civ, but there's plenty of counterplay available for most civs (villagers often exposed, awkward Fortress options, limited unit compositions), and their strength is also pretty map dependent. I struggle to think of any changes that make Brit more manageable on high-resource maps while also not making them even more reliant on high-resource environments to be viable.

[zoom]

We should be nerfing Musketeers, instead. Buffs Iroquois, Japanese and Ottomans in the process.

[richard]

I've really been struggling with Brit because nerfing manors goes against our philosophy of not changing civ bonuses and I think the balance in strength between boom builds and non-boom builds is currently okay for Brit. Nerfing manors is a clear nerf to boom builds, which feels wrong because it is already a style we don't often see. But I just can't find anything better. As things stand, 140w manors will likely make it into the patch, but it hurts. It hurts, guys. Get creative!

In my opinion it would be helpful if you would state the axioms underlying the EP and stay with the axioms you once made, instead of changing the axioms every time you invent a new patch version to justify your new ideas.

At first, you stated the Axiom 1: The EP shall make fewest changes possible compared to RE patch.

But soon (at least for somewhat thoughtful observers) it turned out that it was a misbelief of the patch team itself that they would act according this axiom 1. Instead, the thoughtful observers realized that the axiom that was underlying the EP in reality was the Axiom 2:

"The Meta is shifting towards the semi-ffs."

This proposition, which originally occured as an observation in GoodSpeeds Guide 2014, now obviously hasnt been a conclusion anymore, but an axiom itself: "The Meta shall shift towards the semi-ffs". Goodspeed made his own statement come true. Now it was an observation, which was obviously true because it followed from itself in its property of being an axiom (if you know what i mean).

Many changes were made according to this axiom 2, while still was pointed out that the ep was underlying the axiom 1. I strongly want to believe that this was not intentional to make fun of the patch users but just because the patch team simply didnt understand which was the real axiom according to which they were acting. This lead to many controversials, because many players (like Jerom_ in his autobiography for example) started huge discussions about the changes being made. If at that point you simply had pointed out that axiom 2 and not axiom 1 was underlying the ep, then (e.g.) Jerom_ simply could have said: "If that is your axiom, i wont play your patch". But instead he argued based on axiom 1 and tried to argue against a stale meta with no use of early agression, which was in fact the axiom of the ep at that point (axiom 2). A good example for the fact, that axiom 2 instead of axiom 1 was underlying the ep at that time, was the tc cost decrease to 500w, which is completely unnessecary for balance purposes and thus contradicting the axiom 1, but totally makes sense if the axiom 2 is the underlying one.

Recently, the axioms seem to have changed again. Now we have:

Axiom 3: The changes the ep makes to balance the civs shall be creative.

This simply is a complete new approach. Based on the original axiom 1 it is complete bullshit (excuse this expression) to make creative changes. Regarding axiom 1, it is the simplest way, if for example brits is too strong, to just increase manors 135w->140w or, if russia is too weak, to reduce vills 270f->255f. This is because the game for these civs plays itself in exact the same way then, no new builds or units etc., except for that you do everything you do in a bit slower/weaker or stronger/faster way. Same would be a simple small bow rider hp nerf for example. To the contrary, things like increasing wakina speed or cetan speed completely changes a civ, because the unit compositions and the fighting methods that civs use completly change. Same goes for German Uhlans/Dopps. Tepees and the spanish gold card are further examples. This simply is a complete different way of changing the game than that one which was schemed with axiom 1.

All i want to say with this article i was just writing, is this:

You would avoid hundrets of hours of discussions, which i am sure that you (Goodspeed) dont want to moderate, if you just make clear, what the underlying idea of the ep is. To the contrary, if you say that axiom 1 is underlying the ep, and you try to make creative changes all the time, you will always have discussions, which in fact you really dont want to have.

My last point: If you are at a point, at which a change 135w->140w is a hard one to make for you, you really finally should admit, that axiom 1 is not the one which is underlying the ep (and in reality has never been). If axiom 1 would really be underlying the ep and you are not willing to make a change 135w->140w for manors, you might as well revert all changes you made so far and start balancing again from RE version as a starting point. It is useless to make 150 changes, with axiom 1 in mind, and then having to change 135w->140w to make the wood cost for a manor, which originally was fine, balanced again.

Thanks,
Richard

[yemshi]

Too many axioms, did not understand.

[richard]

Too many axioms, did not understand.

What is an axiom?

[gamevideo113]

We should be nerfing Musketeers, instead. Buffs Iroquois, Japanese and Ottomans in the process.

Buff crossbows

[Mitoe]

It's really annoying that the belief that you can only semi-FF on EP if you want to win has so much traction, especially since it's completely untrue.

[Hazza54321]

yeah @Mitoe only eco ffs, no semis involved

[deleted_user]

Too many axioms, did not understand.

What is an axiom?

I'm not really sure. Can someone help us out?

[Goodspeed]

I've really been struggling with Brit because nerfing manors goes against our philosophy of not changing civ bonuses and I think the balance in strength between boom builds and non-boom builds is currently okay for Brit. Nerfing manors is a clear nerf to boom builds, which feels wrong because it is already a style we don't often see. But I just can't find anything better. As things stand, 140w manors will likely make it into the patch, but it hurts. It hurts, guys. Get creative!

In my opinion it would be helpful if you would state the axioms underlying the EP and stay with the axioms you once made, instead of changing the axioms every time you invent a new patch version to justify your new ideas.

There is one important change to our guidelines we have made so far, and it was when they announced AoE3 DE. This changed our vision, because we used to think RE patch was the final official version of the game. That is why we didn't want to move too far away from it (it would hurt EP adoption). But with DE coming, just in case the DE team asks us what we would change about the game to make it better and more balanced, we want to be prepared. We don't want to, for example, give up on water and then have water be just as broken in the DE as it always has been. By changing water last iteration, we set ourselves up to give better advice to the DE team if they should ask for it. I don't think they have even started on the DE, but it's something we want to be prepared for just in case. Either way, DE likely means the end of EP unless they completely fuck it up.

We do still try to be minimal. If you actually look at the core features of civs and the way they play, not much has changed from RE. The only civs that have seen major reworks are Sioux and Otto, and this is because we found them impossible to balance any other way.

From an archived staff thread:

A change must:
- Address a civ balance issue, or
- Address a larger-scale balance issue which is apparent in a wide variety of match ups (for example dragoon nerf, potential water changes).

A change must not:
- Standardize a unit. For example in the case of uhlans we chose to nerf HP and not attack.
- Remove or nerf techs or shipments which are unique to a civ.
- Remove or nerf a civ bonus.

A change should:
- In the case of a buff target an aspect of the civ which is unique to it (examples include Dutch bank changes, Ottoman Silk Road, Spanish unction).
- In the case of a nerf focus on the civ's start, in order to affect it as generally as possible.
- Be tweakable.

A change should not:
- Encourage a play style which is already prevalent with the civ or in the meta game.
- Discourage a play style which is rarely seen with the civ or in the meta game.
- Introduce an exception to an otherwise consistent game design (for example making TPs more expensive only for a certain civ).

These are guidelines, not axioms, and almost all of our changes are in line with them. One exception I can think of is the China livestock nerf, which was a tough decision but we found no other way to fix it.
Remember the world isn't black and white. We try to stick with these guidelines, and we have done so quite successfully so far in my opinion, but it's not always the right call. This is why I would rather not make the 140w manor change, but we might end up doing so because the alternatives are even worse.

But soon (at least for somewhat thoughtful observers) it turned out that it was a misbelief of the patch team itself that they would act according this axiom 1. Instead, the thoughtful observers realized that the axiom that was underlying the EP in reality was the Axiom 2:

"The Meta is shifting towards the semi-ffs."

Oh how thoughtful of an observer you are.
Just no.

A previous post of mine after last tournament, in reply to similar BS:

If we want campy in-base fortress-based styles then why did we:
- Nerf dragoons
- Nerf walls
- Nerf forbidden army
- Buff cetans
- Buff dopples

Look at our changes from RE patch (you can find that comparison if you scroll down in the patch notes). You may find surprisingly few that "promote" semi-FF or campy styles. Most notably there are the Otto changes, which are an attempt at fixing a broken civ and we're definitely not done there. There's the BR nerf, which was fixing a broken unit. The key point is this: fixing broken things often has the added effect of promoting semi-FFs because the meta naturally evolves towards them. We are doing our best to counteract that by for example buffing dopples over WW, buffing Indian house cost instead of auto-upgrading gurkha (ironically suggested by many), etc.

What our changes have done, rather than promote semi-FFs they have allowed the meta to evolve towards them. It was always going to. People get really caught up in this "EP wants everyone to semi-FF into skirm goon" rhetoric, but our changes are not causing this meta movement. The widespread adoption of TPs, balanced maps and refined build orders are. It was easy to predict as far back as 7 years ago, when EP wasn't even a thing. If RE patch would have balanced maps, you would see a lot of semi-FFs there too. Actually you already do. Because of certain design choices that were made in this game, like minutemen and snare on-hit, the style tends to be superior. It's natural to go Age2, invest in some eco, see what the opponent is doing and make defensive units if necessary and then tech up further. You see the same thing happen in pretty much every RTS. Games get longer and longer, players boom and tech faster and faster. Early aggression is supposed to be gimmicky in RTS, and due to how easy scouting is in this game it tends to be less viable than in a game like SC2. You might argue then that scouting being so easy is a serious design flaw in the game and I would actually agree with you there, but it's what we have to deal with.

And I don't even see a problem when it comes to build variety. It's definitely not like every high level game is a semi-FF war. Look at last finals:
G1: Port mirror where they both forward based into colonial inf wars
G2: Brit vs Dutch semi-FF war (would be different on RE? I think not)
G3: Russian colonial timing against Dutch fortress
G4: 23 minute colonial (some water stuff)
G5: Russian colonial timing against French fortress
G6: Jan huss rush against German colonial
G7: Spain FF against Brit colonial
G8: Cons rush against French colonial

This proposition, which originally occured as an observation in GoodSpeeds Guide 2014

There is no such prediction in my guide. In my guide I addressed 2 meta shifts: more TPs, and more resource crates. Not more semi-FFs. The "revolution" of semi-FFs came in 2009 or 2010, when the German transition TP 9 uhlan semi-FF became widespread and turned out to be very strong. They have been used more and more ever since then.

Many changes were made according to this axiom 2,

I honestly can't think of many changes we did that promote semi-FFs. Please enlighten me.

while still was pointed out that the ep was underlying the axiom 1.

Pointed out where? Our minimalist approach was a guideline that we don't feel as strongly about since the DE announcement in that we want to test bigger changes, but we still don't want to affect the meta if we can help it. And we actually do pretty well. You are repeating other people's BS but I have never seen anyone back it up with real data. Tournaments show, as I mentioned in the quoted post above, that build variety is not a problem at all right now.

Recently, the axioms seem to have changed again. Now we have:

Axiom 3: The changes the ep makes to balance the civs shall be creative.

This simply is a complete new approach. Based on the original axiom 1 it is complete bullshit (excuse this expression) to make creative changes. Regarding axiom 1, it is the simplest way, if for example brits is too strong, to just increase manors 135w->140w or, if russia is too weak, to reduce vills 270f->255f. This is because the game for these civs plays itself in exact the same way then, no new builds or units etc., except for that you do everything you do in a bit slower/weaker or stronger/faster way.

Which is why we are considering the manor nerf and actually did change Russia that way...

Same would be a simple small bow rider hp nerf for example.

You misunderstand the poor state Sioux was in. With only a BR nerf, nobody would ever play the civ. There is a difference between a balance issue and a design issue. I have explained this difference many times in the past, probably in early EP threads since our approach to Sioux and Otto has been different from the beginning. This has been well-communicated and explained.

All i want to say with this article i was just writing, is this:

You would avoid hundrets of hours of discussions, which i am sure that you (Goodspeed) dont want to moderate, if you just make clear, what the underlying idea of the ep is. To the contrary, if you say that axiom 1 is underlying the ep, and you try to make creative changes all the time, you will always have discussions, which in fact you really dont want to have.

Then why didn't you just say that?
I agree that communication could've been better in the latest EP versions. But it's extremely time consuming, and perhaps more importantly disheartening because there will always be people who take everything we say the wrong way. We changed our approach? Oh, it's because we want to make the game more enjoyable for ourselves. We chose to change X and Y for Z reason? No it's actually because we are incompetent and misunderstand the game completely. I do try to respond to feedback but I rarely come out of it feeling good about the discussion. Since I don't get paid for managing community perception, if it doesn't feel rewarding I'm not going to be inclined to do it.
Right now our main focus is improving the game. The results of our changes, which so far have brought much improved balance without affecting the meta much at all (contrary to popular belief), will speak for themselves.

My last point: If you are at a point, at which a change 135w->140w is a hard one to make for you, you really finally should admit, that axiom 1 is not the one which is underlying the ep (and in reality has never been).

It has never been our one and only "axiom". It was an important consideration until EP 4. I don't see what the manor thing has to do with it though. The manor nerf violates a different guideline: "A change must not nerf a civ bonus".

If axiom 1 would really be underlying the ep and you are not willing to make a change 135w->140w for manors, you might as well revert all changes you made so far and start balancing again from RE version as a starting point. It is useless to make 150 changes, with axiom 1 in mind, and then having to change 135w->140w to make the wood cost for a manor, which originally was fine, balanced again.

It wasn't fine originally. The only reason Brit isn't (one of the) top civ(s) on RE is that other civs, which we nerfed on EP, are even better, and the standard maps are very bad for Brit.

[richard]

Thanks for that reply, Goodspeed. I will carefully read through it and then maybe try to give some helpful advices later.

[Garja]

If DE ever comes out and they ask for input I very much hope we will provide something way more minimalistic than the EP.

[Atomiswave]

If DE ever comes out and they ask for input I very much hope we will provide something way more minimalistic than the EP.

Is that even possible?

[Goodspeed]

@Garja
The basis of our minimalist approach was that changing too much would hurt adoption, and changing too much at once would diminish our grasp on balance. Without the former consideration, we can still make good progress through iterations.
This game has some real issues and if we get to give advice on how to fix them where adoption is not a consideration, minimalism no longer makes sense.

A good example is the potential crossbow buff you like to bring up. This one is high impact, and we haven't risked it so far.

Anyway, let's try to stick with Brit ITT
@richard If you want to reply to my post, please make a new thread instead (where you include both of our previous posts).

[Garja]

Xbow buff would simply be a revert of previous nerf. A simple tweak of numbers, nonetheless.Water changes is something completely different.
Those are just two examples. Reworking a civ would be an even a more extreme example.

Anyway, I think adoption will still be a thing on DE. They're not going to take any advice that involves too many changes from the old official patch. Especially when there is no consensus among players on what has been changed. Basically, do not expect every player to be so keen to push the whole EP to the DE devs if there is the chance.

Back on topic, I don't see why 140w manor change shouldn't be adopted. I don't see how the "don't nerf one civ's bonus" should be an absolute rule. Brits are literally fine in every aspect but manors. So if manors don't get nerfed the civ may as well remain untouched rather than being ruined with other not logical changes.

[Goodspeed]

The rule is not absolute, that's why it's being considered. But it's definitely not ideal.

[momuuu]

Id say brits are inconsistent in that they are by far the most map dependant civ. If you give brits a large amount of hunts, theres nothing that stops them from all out booming and then basically outscaling everything in the game. If they dont have a large amount of hunts though theyre a fine civ imo.

Actually nerfing manors is a more targetted nerf at the scenario where brits are too strong, and not as bad in scenarios where they arent great.

Its also long overdue to accept that there is a great deal of maps where brits are just too strong and that the maps arent really going to change in the near future. If theres other ways to actually nerf them then sure, but not nerfing the civ that has been top civ for 3 years because of arbitrary reasoning would straight up be bullshit.

[Garja]

I agree with you Jerom although I want to specify something.
Map dependancy on EP is probably both a bit overrated and also a factor that gets smaller the more balance gets better. Simply smoothening extreme type of play (both eco or aggressive play) opens up for different option for every civ. On EP, when it is needed, Brits can be played actively from the start with moderate success, sacrifing manors for more units. This makes them less map dependant, being able to succed on both high and low resource maps.
Also Brits hunt dependancy is a bit of a myth. They rather need lot of resources overall to keep vills working and unleash their real power but the fact that they get a good portion of vills from card or wood means that in fact they save food compared to some other civs. I'd say that when it comes to attrition wars they do better than Ports or French, for example.

[momuuu]

It's not even the food dependancy necessarily, but just the fact that you have to stop them from going full greed. And if they have a lot of safe resources, which they don't deplete that fast, then you can't succesfully pressure brits.

[Goodspeed]

There is that aggro style of play against Brit where you disrupt their boom build with early pressure and then try to retain map control. I haven't seen it a lot but I think it could be a decent counter against VC builds or other eco-heavy builds. Wouldn't work for all civs, of course.