Russians Discussion Thread

[bwinner]

I think that a big issue for russia is that u can kill them in 4 mins just by sending mm in a lot of games... That doesn't matter so much in normal game because a lot of people don't try to do that (because it's not interessant) but in tourney I think everybody would try doing that and it's something to considere for the FP...
Btw I don't know how to change that. Maybe nerf mm attack vs vils ? Because they r not mean to kill selters and make rush impossible...

I don't think new patch's change made russia OP (I think that didn't change anything)

[Kaiserklein]

Lol everyone knows there has been close to zero testing so I'm not sure what you guys are even discussing
About people among the team not liking the changes, maybe if there was some proper voting for changes then people wouldn't be so upset

[Dsy]

Vote couldnt help neither. Some people always lose voting too and they can be upset for that.
Anyway Im up for test games if some1 wanna just send me pm.

[Garja]

I don't know what there is to be upset of honestly. Balance is improving every patch even if it is not perfect.

[Mr_Bramboy]

Show hidden quotes

Nobody mentioned that russian age 3 unit shipments are not that good. They deserve a buff.

What are you talking about? They received 3 more strelets. Their fortress shipments are absolutely fine now. Thanks patch team!

There aren't many people to playtest anything so small changes are good.

Actually there's an entire team dedicated to playtesting.

Yes but some of them have said publicly that they don't playtest because they don't like the change

Link? That sounds extremely immature and those people should be removed from the team as soon as possible.

I dont remember the threads tgey were in but i remember at least one name that i can PM you, and ill try to find a thread of an esoc member complaining of not enough playtesting

Please do PM. This is a serious issue.

[Mr_Bramboy]

I don't know what there is to be upset of honestly. Balance is improving every patch even if it is not perfect.

I'm not upset, just slightly confused. From Ovi's and Kaiser's posts I gather that the team a) didn't like the changes they argued about and b) never tested the changes because they didn't like them. Not saying this goes for every member but it seems the patch team might need a complete revamp.

[_H2O]

It does lol.

[lordraphael]

and how would this revamp look like ?

[Jaeger]

Show hidden quotes

Nobody mentioned that russian age 3 unit shipments are not that good. They deserve a buff.

What are you talking about? They received 3 more strelets. Their fortress shipments are absolutely fine now. Thanks patch team!

There aren't many people to playtest anything so small changes are good.

Actually there's an entire team dedicated to playtesting.

Yes but some of them have said publicly that they don't playtest because they don't like the change

Link? That sounds extremely immature and those people should be removed from the team as soon as possible.

I dont remember the threads tgey were in but i remember at least one name that i can PM you, and ill try to find a thread of an esoc member complaining of not enough playtesting

Please do PM. This is a serious issue.

Ok. I think you're trolling me but see Kaiser's comment above too (who is on the patch team) but I'll PM you anyway

[[Armag] diarouga]

@Ovi

notification

kaiser isn't in the patch team anymore.

[deleted_user]

and how would this revamp look like ?

How about a bunch of inactive captains!!
@Jerom

notification

[[Armag] diarouga]

and how would this revamp look like ?

Probably delete the EP team, and either surrender or let captains lead it since there are no active decent players who aren't in that team who want to be part of the team.

[oxaloacetate]

and how would this revamp look like ?

Probably delete the EP team, and either surrender or let captains lead it since there are no active decent players who aren't in that team who want to be part of the team.

This following post is not aimed at you, Diarouga, but you have the most relevant post to quote.

I don't really care that much about the EP, but there are some things I have noticed.

I think it is a fair assumption that if you seek balance (as good as can be, at least), then the patch team should consist of players with the most game insight, which in most cases also happen to be the top ranked players. It seems to me that this is the route the patch team opted for. So far, so good. Except, there are members of the patch team which fall outside of that category. I'm not arguing they should be removed, only noting the inconsistency of policy.

Some problems due however arise from this.
Design considerations seems to frequently come up. Some of the patch team members have the attitude that something was "Ensamble Studios original intention" and therefore it should not be changed. For one, it seems tricky to know what was the original intention of some random ES game designer more than a decade ago (seems more like that they just use it as a bad excuse to have their way). For another, does it really matter? I mean, it should be well established by now that ES did not have exceptional balance in mind when making this game.

Other games today are patched both in terms of present balance, but also with regards to philosophy of the patch team/game. This is something which, to me, as an outsider seems non-existent. Originally the focus seemed to be minimal change, but this has somewhat changed lately, with more changes than many deemed necessary. This is almost a given, though, since the goal of a patch team is change at least as much as it is balance.

Despite of the team having several private communication methods where I presume the balance discussion occurs, members still manage to start arguing randomly over balance in the public forums in extremely non-constructive ways.

To me there is an alternative. If the goal of the patch is to become relatively popular within the community, the smart choice would obviously be transparency. Having more open balance discussions where everyone of the forum felt welcome to suggest- and comment on changes. Where everyone had the option to playtest and take active part of the process. On the other hand, if the goal is a patch which is virtually unplayed, then I guess, have at it as you (plural form: again not aimed at Diarouga specifically) currently are.

[zoom]

1. It can be done we have the tech talent I think.
2. It would make the unit stronger for sure and would need a corresponding rof nerf.
3. Russia has the ability to semi now. They can do stagecoach builds, have ATP. Also their rax is 50 wood tower built in so they can get up. The problem is when you get up you have no stabalizing units (goons vs musk Huss for example) and you don't get anything good except falcs and Manchu.

Thanks! It's fun to talk about ideas for the game even if I am not playing anymore.

but wouldnt that just standardize the unit/ the game sth you didint wanna do iirc.
I think CA are fine. Imo they are even better in some units compositions ( lb /CA would be insane for example)

I hear what you are saying and it would standardize the unit which I do prefer to avoid.

Any ideas how to more simply fix Russia's anti cav problem? I think it's just a little to bad. German suffer from a similar problem but for Russia it seems to be insurmountable.

Four Cossacks with every shipment?

[zoom]

Show hidden quotes

Nobody mentioned that russian age 3 unit shipments are not that good. They deserve a buff.

What are you talking about? They received 3 more strelets. Their fortress shipments are absolutely fine now. Thanks patch team!

There aren't many people to playtest anything so small changes are good.

Actually there's an entire team dedicated to playtesting.

Yes but some of them have said publicly that they don't playtest because they don't like the change

Link? That sounds extremely immature and those people should be removed from the team as soon as possible.

I dont remember the threads tgey were in but i remember at least one name that i can PM you, and ill try to find a thread of an esoc member complaining of not enough playtesting

That should be incredibly easy, considering everyone is of that opinion.

[zoom]

Lol everyone knows there has been close to zero testing so I'm not sure what you guys are even discussing
About people among the team not liking the changes, maybe if there was some proper voting for changes then people wouldn't be so upset

Close to zero testing is an exaggeration. There definitely hasn't been a lot, though.

Also, virtually every decision made is a matter of compromise. As it turns out, people in this community find compromise difficult.

[zoom]

It does lol.

Everyone dislikes every change and nobody is testing because of it? It rather makes you wonder why any of the changes were made then. If you want to slight Goodspeed then please do so without saying nonsense.

[zoom]

and how would this revamp look like ?

Probably delete the EP team, and either surrender or let captains lead it since there are no active decent players who aren't in that team who want to be part of the team.

This following post is not aimed at you, Diarouga, but you have the most relevant post to quote.

I don't really care that much about the EP, but there are some things I have noticed.

I think it is a fair assumption that if you seek balance (as good as can be, at least), then the patch team should consist of players with the most game insight, which in most cases also happen to be the top ranked players. It seems to me that this is the route the patch team opted for. So far, so good. Except, there are members of the patch team which fall outside of that category. I'm not arguing they should be removed, only noting the inconsistency of policy.

Some problems due however arise from this.
Design considerations seems to frequently come up. Some of the patch team members have the attitude that something was "Ensamble Studios original intention" and therefore it should not be changed. For one, it seems tricky to know what was the original intention of some random ES game designer more than a decade ago (seems more like that they just use it as a bad excuse to have their way). For another, does it really matter? I mean, it should be well established by now that ES did not have exceptional balance in mind when making this game.

Other games today are patched both in terms of present balance, but also with regards to philosophy of the patch team/game. This is something which, to me, as an outsider seems non-existent. Originally the focus seemed to be minimal change, but this has somewhat changed lately, with more changes than many deemed necessary. This is almost a given, though, since the goal of a patch team is change at least as much as it is balance.

Despite of the team having several private communication methods where I presume the balance discussion occurs, members still manage to start arguing randomly over balance in the public forums in extremely non-constructive ways.

To me there is an alternative. If the goal of the patch is to become relatively popular within the community, the smart choice would obviously be transparency. Having more open balance discussions where everyone of the forum felt welcome to suggest- and comment on changes. Where everyone had the option to playtest and take active part of the process. On the other hand, if the goal is a patch which is virtually unplayed, then I guess, have at it as you (plural form: again not aimed at Diarouga specifically) currently are.

You make some good points; particularly concerning policy on changes. Mainly it comes down to the general inability of constructivity in this community. For example, every time there is a compromise made, most everyone feel that they were "ignored." As I'm sure you can imagine – not least given your observations – this makes things quite difficult indeed.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Show hidden quotes

and how would this revamp look like ?

Probably delete the EP team, and either surrender or let captains lead it since there are no active decent players who aren't in that team who want to be part of the team.

This following post is not aimed at you, Diarouga, but you have the most relevant post to quote.

I don't really care that much about the EP, but there are some things I have noticed.

I think it is a fair assumption that if you seek balance (as good as can be, at least), then the patch team should consist of players with the most game insight, which in most cases also happen to be the top ranked players. It seems to me that this is the route the patch team opted for. So far, so good. Except, there are members of the patch team which fall outside of that category. I'm not arguing they should be removed, only noting the inconsistency of policy.

Some problems due however arise from this.
Design considerations seems to frequently come up. Some of the patch team members have the attitude that something was "Ensamble Studios original intention" and therefore it should not be changed. For one, it seems tricky to know what was the original intention of some random ES game designer more than a decade ago (seems more like that they just use it as a bad excuse to have their way). For another, does it really matter? I mean, it should be well established by now that ES did not have exceptional balance in mind when making this game.

Other games today are patched both in terms of present balance, but also with regards to philosophy of the patch team/game. This is something which, to me, as an outsider seems non-existent. Originally the focus seemed to be minimal change, but this has somewhat changed lately, with more changes than many deemed necessary. This is almost a given, though, since the goal of a patch team is change at least as much as it is balance.

Despite of the team having several private communication methods where I presume the balance discussion occurs, members still manage to start arguing randomly over balance in the public forums in extremely non-constructive ways.

To me there is an alternative. If the goal of the patch is to become relatively popular within the community, the smart choice would obviously be transparency. Having more open balance discussions where everyone of the forum felt welcome to suggest- and comment on changes. Where everyone had the option to playtest and take active part of the process. On the other hand, if the goal is a patch which is virtually unplayed, then I guess, have at it as you (plural form: again not aimed at Diarouga specifically) currently are.

You make some good points; particularly concerning policy on changes. Mainly it comes down to the general inability of constructivity in this community. For example, every time there is a compromise made, most everyone feel that they were "ignored." As I'm sure you can imagine – not least given your observations – this makes things quite difficult indeed.

It's just that garja and I can't agree about balance, so how could we change the design of the game?

[zoom]

Quite frankly, I don't think Garja can agree with anyone about balance.

[oxaloacetate]

Quite frankly, I don't think Garja can agree with anyone about balance.

It is not my intention to side against anyone or use ad hominem-arguments, as is the standard way of doing business here at ESOC, sadly.

Having said that, from a leadership perspective, the composition of the team is really odd. The criteria is (or seems to me to be) the best players available, which is not how the business is conducted; even if it is, it is only because of the almost forced exodus of other members. If the team were suppose to be based on merit, then the team should be made up of H2O on its own (and it would probably be a superior option to todays patch team because of genuine continuity in the changes made).

The reason I highlight this is because as long as the patch team does not function, whether it be a public or private endeavour, the EP will continue to be a failure to 90 percent of ESOC, which is sad. Why would someone put their efforts into something which is fundamentally doomed to fail?

Irrational epenis es nobueno penis.

It's just that garja and I can't agree about balance, so how could we change the design of the game?

This is not a problem of not you two not being able to agree with each other, but the fact that both of you act like pre-schoolers, which is surprising given the age and intellectual ability of both of you.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Quite frankly, I don't think Garja can agree with anyone about balance.

It is not my intention to side against anyone or use ad hominem-arguments, as is the standard way of doing business here at ESOC, sadly.

Having said that, from a leadership perspective, the composition of the team is really odd. The criteria is (or seems to me to be) the best players available, which is not how the business is conducted; even if it is, it is only because of the almost forced exodus of other members. If the team were suppose to be based on merit, then the team should be made up of H2O on its own (and it would probably be a superior option to todays patch team because of genuine continuity in the changes made).

The point is that the more we are, the more accurate it is. However we need to have people who know the game (to me a pr30 doesn't understand the game enough to have a valid opinion about the patch).

The reason I highlight this is because as long as the patch team does not function, whether it be a public or private endeavour, the EP will continue to be a failure to 90 percent of ESOC, which is sad. Why would someone put their efforts into something which is fundamentally doomed to fail?

Yes, it doesn't work, that's for sure, but how would you make it work? If you have any idea, please tell us. But firing the current team to hire a new one is not the solution, the new team would face the same issues, and be less good.
The main issue is that when we don't agree about a change, we try to make compromises and it of course doesn't work well.

Irrational epenis es nobueno penis.

It's just that garja and I can't agree about balance, so how could we change the design of the game?

This is not a problem of not you two not being able to agree with each other, but the fact that both of you act like pre-schoolers, which is surprising given the age and intellectual ability of both of you.
No, really it's not. It's just that we have to extremly different way of seeing the game.
To me as long as the meta doesn't shift, and if it improves the balance, it's good. To garja, the game has to be random, and changes "should make sense", even if it doesn't improve the balance.
That's why I can't agree with him about maps having fixed hunts or about removing random crates, which are two keys in the balance (btw, out of the few 1v1 I played this weekend, I had one game on Arkansas where my 2nd hunt was on the middle of the map, and shrined lol, unplayable).

It's also a problem because for example garja wants zamburaks and musket riders to have 20% RR instead of 30 because we nerfed goons, but to me it makes 0 sense because we nerfed goons because they were to dominant in team games and the goon civs (France, port) were too good. However, india and iro are bad in 1v1, on top of that zams are bad, they get raped by goons, skirms, musks, and well, musk riders are good but iro is bad in both 1v1 and team games.

That's just 2 examples, but it's like that about 90% of the suggestions, that's why we can never make a change.

[Dsy]

The main problem whithout playtests changes doesnt make any sense.
Its like changed something but we dont see how. Conclusions doesnt really works only in theory.

I go to recorded games topic and its almost empty for ep patch.

[[Armag] diarouga]

The main problem whithout playtests changes doesnt make any sense.
Its like changed something but we dont see how. Conclusions doesnt really works only in theory.

I go to recorded games topic and its almost empty for ep patch.

You don't really have to test the changes honestly, -5f/v for russia isn't going to change much, same for -100f for France (except they won't age with 13 anymore), and same with -10 HP for germany.

[Dsy]

But dutch change actually can be effective: Bank cost decreased from 350f, 350w to 350f, 300w. Bounties increased from 110xp to 130xp ("build") and 220xp to 260xp ("kill").

German age 2 actually changed much. Age 3 has no really effect.

Spain:"Unction" home-city shipment damage-aura effect decreased from 5% to 4% per Missionary (i.e. maximum potential damage increase reduced from ~63% to ~48%). Missionary cost decreased from 100w, 100c to 50w, 50c:
I guess this feature cant be used in competitve games, but dont know i dont see any players who could use it.