Chinese Discussion Thread

[zoom]

I agree with Goodspeed , demand is the only criteria. This is the reason why Sioux were given eco boost by teepee aura. If balance team can work on demand , why can't the map team, Garja .

Balance team and map team don't work on demand.
For the record teepee eco aura is a terrible idea.

I agree with with you on teepee aura Eco boost.
and plz read again what Goodspeed said, I will quote again "Care to elaborate? Seems to me like it's the only criterion.-Goodspeed". So surely at least balance team is working on demand.

You misunderstand. Goodspeed is talking about map-sets; not balance.

[[Armag] diarouga]

5) a) Otto has always been a joke, and we've never managed to fix it. You're in the EP team, and you haven't done shit to improve the civ. Honestly, I just don't know how we can change otto, and if you have an idea, tell us.
Otto being a joke can't be blamed on the EP policy, we just haven't found a way.

There is a way to improve Otto, i.e. reduce all in aggression and more late game focused but my ideas would be too revolutionary for most people to stomach.

Well reducing the all in agression and giving them eco options so that they can play middle/late game is of course the goal.
We tried to do that with the jan nerf (now jan all ins are considerably weaker), but that didn't work out.

[princeofcarthage]

Hello this is china thread :thinking:

[Garja]

1) Ok if you don't balance that way, how do you balance? You just can't randomly claim that civ A looks good while civ B looks bad. We really need a method to balance the game, and it is based on
a) The tourney results
b) The EP team tests (on TP maps ofc)
c) The community opinion which is frequently asked
If you don't have a method, you'll end up claiming nonsenses like «Russia is a better civ overall than Germany»
Now if you have another method, other than relying on random opinions, I'd be pleased to hear it

a) Ok good point, there should be a method. However I don't agree with this method and I can tell you why.
Using tourney results as the main driver for balance like they do for example ins SC, pushing every civ win rate to 50%, has multiple problems:
- it is affected by players performance;
- it penalize players that can bring a civ to a new level. There might emerge a new way of playing that is very good but only few players are able to perform it. That surely makes one civ better than the others but it's not fair for those few players to have their civ nerfed when the average good player can't do that.
- it is simply unrealistic in AOE3, without taking too many elements out of the equation;
b) EP team tests are ok but they are only very reliable for testing specific stuff and mostly to find sweet spots to tweak numbers;
c) community opinion is fine, even thought I'm not perfectly fond about that and I'll come back on it below.
This approach certainly has the advantage of being measurable somehow. The problem tho is that it is at best a very raw estimation of balance but it is taken as a good measure of it.
I've seen people's opinion, including mine, change way too many times based on specific games to the point that I don't think this is the right approach for AOE3. In particular we just don't have enough of a player base nor manpower within the EP team to give enough reliability to those data. If you think about it it took months or even years for certain imbalances to emerge and be taken for granted with a much larger playerbase. Now we are tyring to balance the game out of results from a much smaller player base, changing things way more frequently.
You call them random opinions, but to me they are informed opinions. I very much trust more the general opinion of top players, based on their personal games but also on how the game has evolved in past, than tourney results or a couple games where a civ seems to be unbeatable. Using these criteria alone we wouldn't have even nerfed Sioux in last iteration since none exactly proved they are OP but a simple look at numbers (60% gathering boost lol) clearly points out they were.
As for community opinion I take it with a grain of salt because I don't consider it informed enough most of times. Sometimes is because it takes some skills to execute a certain type of play, sometimes it's about lack of prior knowledge.
In general I think balance should be planned on civ features and the overall past evolution of the civ. Then it can be adjusted as imbalances emerge.
Using civ features ensures that the balance will be for the long term as those features don't change with the evolving of the meta and thus personal players play style.

2)
a) I can tell you Otto and Germany are not viable on TP maps, and if you don't believe, we can play a showmatch so I can show you how bad they are.
See, I'm the one who tries to bring facts, method, testing, and not an opinion which concludes that all in all the game shouldn't be balanced because in niche situations, a bad civ can be ok.
b) Yes that's my point, a civ is going to be op on TP maps, and terrible on no TP maps, that's a big issue, and it destroys all the balance

I wouldn't like to play those civs myself on a no TP map but still that doesn't mean the no TP map has to be taken out of the equation.
I think we just have a different opinion of how the balance should work then. You say it's a big issue for civs to be so polarized, I don't think it is. Otto and Germans are two extremes really. They both excel on TP maps and are significantly worse on no TP. That's ok the 2 things compensate. None forces you to play a polarized civ. If you want a jack of all trades go with French or Brits or w/e works decent on all maps.
The goal of the EP is to bring those imbalances within an acceptable range. For example Otto units should be nerfed a bit (they are overnerfed now) so that the civ is not OP on TP maps while mosque techs has been buffed so that the civ is at the limit of being playable on non TP maps.
Same thing for Germans, except in that case it's probably wiser to nerf fortress shipments (big 4 shipments, plus merc combat) instead of touching unit stats. Then for no TP maps just buff xbows, which not only allowes Germans to be played in colonial but it is also a desirable change for other civs with the same situation (Ports, Spain and French to a lesser extent).
Those are my suggestions and I already made them very clear to GS, which instead preferred other nonsense changes (dopp buff, ulhan nerf, jans nerf, abus rof, honestly all ugly changes).
Aside from that, I was also refering to the fact that those civs are not weak in every MU. Ger vs Fre, for example, can be a totally balanced MU on a no TP map with very little tweaks (xbow buff and, if necessary, dopp buff). Same thing goes for all other euro MUs and probably TWC ones. Where you spot an imbalance you can correct it based on civ general features, which again ensures the civ to be consistent on most of conditions. For example among TWC civs only Aztec probably poses a problem on no TP maps. Then you nerf some relevant aspect of Aztecs like maces shipments.

3) You're rephrasing what I said. I didn't say that ONLY TP maps should be considered, but I proved that civs can only be balanced on either TP maps or no TP maps, and that it's better to balance them on TP maps.
Ask yourself the following question:
Do I want all the civs to be balanced or high hunts TP maps, and unbalanced on others, or do I want all the civs to be balanced on Cascade Range, and unbalanced on all the others?

I think 90% of the community will agree that it's better to reach the balance on TP maps.

You didn't prove it honestly. You are just avoiding my argument about dynamic balance. I want all the civs balanced on all maps to a reasonable degree. And I already posted a complete list of changes that would lead to that result, but it has been completely ignored.

4) You ignored my point. I am NOT against map diversity at all.
It's interesting, however balance doesn't exist on unstandard maps (only 5 civs are viable most of the time), so it's cool if players can prepare and pick the civs, but tourney maps should mostly be std maps, in order to provide a competitive environment.

I think it's the opposite maybe?! You ignoring my point that balance exists on all maps if considered together.

5) a) Otto has always been a joke, and we've never managed to fix it. You're in the EP team, and you haven't done shit to improve the civ. Honestly, I just don't know how we can change otto, and if you have an idea, tell us.
Otto being a joke can't be blamed on the EP policy, we just haven't found a way.

I have posted suggestions all the fucking time and they have been either ignored or when adopted they in fact produced good results. Mosque tech change was an idea of mine originally.
My other suggestion are:
- abus gun ROF change should be reverted. Instead ranged base damage should be nerfed to 30 (multiplier against ranged cavalry adjusted accordingly if imbalances emerge);
- mosque card in age 3 should make all mosque techs researchable for free;
- unique card for cavalry archers should also grant some other real buff on top of the bonus against villagers. For example HP, attack, or even just speed.
Those changes combined will give enough chances to Otto to be played on most of conditions, while even enhancing some of their unique features.

b) Ports are fine now, I've no idea what you're talking about. Imo the Port redesign is a success, and many people agree.

They are not fine, at the very least from a design POV. They simply scale in a retarded way in mid game and that's evident in team games were such situation happens more often. It's a perfect example on how basing changes on game results only can lead to bad calls. Adding such bonus over the bonus of producing from multiple town center is a design aberration and it should sound the allarm about balance.
Again I gave reasonable alternatives to this, even trying to achieve the same results (cheaper cassas to deplete less food) but they were discarded once again. Let's then keep retarded Port eco in mid game

c) Sioux and Dutch are unbalanced because of the lack of testing.

Dutch is okish though, so you can't really blame the balance team for that.
Dutch is okish
As for Sioux, the goal was to give them eco options, which is a cool idea.
However, the lack of testing (I've been busy for one year now, so I'm sorry I can't help more. It's likely to change next year though), made the civ unbalanced, not the method.

Sioux was (and still probably is, but who cares anymore at this point) unbalanced because their not supposed to take advantage of any direct eco mechanics as they alreayd have means to be competitive. Sioux units are OP and they have plenty of facilitations, even in colonial, to make a play out of it. No houses is a permanent wood discount. Units range from above par ot simply OP. They have 4 unit types in colonial. They certainly had to be adjusted to adhere to the EP meta changes (mostly maps) and to compensate for nerfing their supposed best unit (BR) but that's why I proposed stuff like 5v, Mustang card buff, etc.
But no lol, let's give teepees insane eco gathering boost and also let's give default facilitations such as building them with infantry
Eco options are fine as long as they don't denaturate the essence of the civ. Sioux shouldn't make use of big eco improvements but rather just some minor tweaks like the ones I proposed.
Honestly if someone doesn't play a civ, especially with its intended play style, it should refrain to push toward certain balance solutions. Sioux have a unique play style that has been labeled "broken" by people that don't play them at all. One thing is to nerf BR because they straight beat their counter units, another thing is to completley revolutionize the civ.

Dutch is okish simply because some buffs move in the right direction and because the civ is definitely one of the weakest on the RE patch so they deserved some buffs.
It's just that the 5th banks raises a number of problems, first of which is the retarded income that allows the retarded spam of unit out of a semi FF.

6) You were against the general opinion lol, not just against mine most of the time. That doesn't matter anyway, my point is that you're against the EP goal which is to reach a balance on standard maps, as your posts showed.

If anything EP goal is to reach balance without differing too much from RE. Now whether that phylosophy is still in place I don't know (actually it's pretty evident we already deviated from there) but it was something we set at the beginning and on which the complete team agreed on.
What you are bringing now - balance on standard (aka TP) maps - is something only you and GS seem completely fond of.

[KINGofOsmane]

too much to read sry

[Hazza54321]

i think garjas profession, (other than being an OG attractive aoe player) is to become a novelist

[deleted_user]

ESOC launched the short story career of one Metis.

I mean that's a nice joke there Hazza you wouldn't mind if I stole it?

[Goodspeed]

Rouga Read discord

[momuuu]

I don't really see why demand should be a factor in map-making. Each map is built around a distinct concept or feature (or two), and that's what makes it unique from other maps; for example, Baja California's cliffs and water, Bonnie Springs' town, Herald Island's backdoor and cliff-wall, or Bengal's cliff and marsh. In some cases that means it's better for some maps to have TPs, while others don't. Obviously this is going to promote different types of strategies or civilizations over others.

If you don't want maps to affect balance, then you need to either balance for 1 specific map or only create maps that are essentially clones of that 1 map with a different skin. This doesn't sound very fun for map-makers or players to me.

This is probably why modern games don't try to "balance" anymore (at least, not in the true sense of the word), and instead cycle through different playstyles being stronger or weaker at different times.

I am not at all arguing for reducing map diversity. I only want more map pools, specifically "Competitive maps" and "TP maps" pools are needed imo. I've argued this from the beginning of EP, but inexplicably people are passionately against it.

This so much. I think there's a large group of people that prefer not having the random 'oh this match up is unplayable because it's a no TP map or very low hunt map' 1/3rd of the time but also don't want to always play on the same map. There's no harm in creating a mappool with only standard maps.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Rouga Read discord

I have an issue with discord and I can't log in unless I'm on my comp (it asks me a validation code but I don't get the email), so I can't read it till 1weeks. I can read Skype however.

[[Armag] diarouga]

a) Ok good point, there should be a method. However I don't agree with this method and I can tell you why.
Using tourney results as the main driver for balance like they do for example ins SC, pushing every civ win rate to 50%, has multiple problems:
- it is affected by players performance;
- it penalize players that can bring a civ to a new level. There might emerge a new way of playing that is very good but only few players are able to perform it. That surely makes one civ better than the others but it's not fair for those few players to have their civ nerfed when the average good player can't do that.
- it is simply unrealistic in AOE3, without taking too many elements out of the equation;

I agree with you that this method has flaws. Indeed it's largely based on players' performances in tourney (though now, I guess we can start doing this with ladder too). I also agree that that it feels unfair to nerf a civ only a few player can play (I think the azzy WC nerf was deserved but it sucks for me ), even though you have to keep in mind that we all have a play style, and that it is unfair to have a playstyle which is op, even if only one player plays it.
Still, as you said, that's the method SC uses, and there are people who's job is to balance a game, because that's the most reliable method. You're pointing out the flaws the EP method has, but you're not giving us any suggestion, that's not really constructive.

This approach certainly has the advantage of being measurable somehow. The problem tho is that it is at best a very raw estimation of balance but it is taken as a good measure of it.
I've seen people's opinion, including mine, change way too many times based on specific games to the point that I don't think this is the right approach for AOE3. In particular we just don't have enough of a player base nor manpower within the EP team to give enough reliability to those data. If you think about it it took months or even years for certain imbalances to emerge and be taken for granted with a much larger playerbase. Now we are tyring to balance the game out of results from a much smaller player base, changing things way more frequently.

Well, it's the only approach I know which is measurable.
It took months or years for certain imbalances to emerge, but it means that someone found a new way to play, and as you said above, "it's not fair for those few players to have their civ nerfed when the average good player can't do that", so they will benefit from it in the next tourney, and then it's going to be nerfed. So all in all, it's not that bad, it rewards creative play, while fixing the imbalance once it's known.

You call them random opinions, but to me they are informed opinions. I very much trust more the general opinion of top players, based on their personal games but also on how the game has evolved in past, than tourney results or a couple games where a civ seems to be unbeatable. Using these criteria alone we wouldn't have even nerfed Sioux in last iteration since none exactly proved they are OP but a simple look at numbers (60% gathering boost lol) clearly points out they were.
As for community opinion I take it with a grain of salt because I don't consider it informed enough most of times. Sometimes is because it takes some skills to execute a certain type of play, sometimes it's about lack of prior knowledge.
In general I think balance should be planned on civ features and the overall past evolution of the civ. Then it can be adjusted as imbalances emerge.
Using civ features ensures that the balance will be for the long term as those features don't change with the evolving of the meta and thus personal players play style.

I also trust the general opinion of top players. The issue is that, as you know, it's impossible to reach an agreement, and some top players will agree with an idea, some won't. That's why, it's impossible to rely on the "general opinion of top players", because such a thing doesn't exist.
About this "civ feature" thing, you're literally the only one who has an opinion about it, and you end up saying "Russia is a better civ overall than Germany", which is the opposite of the "general opinion of the top players". That alone clearly shows that your feelings about how the civs should works, and the "general opinion of top players" can't become a method.

I think we just have a different opinion of how the balance should work then. You say it's a big issue for civs to be so polarized, I don't think it is. Otto and Germans are two extremes really. They both excel on TP maps and are significantly worse on no TP. That's ok the 2 things compensate. None forces you to play a polarized civ. If you want a jack of all trades go with French or Brits or w/e works decent on all maps.

Well, the debate was that we wanted to have a map pool where our civ would be viable in every situation. If we pick France, we lose to some civs on TP maps, and to some others on no TP maps, so we're not sure we're going to have a fair MU.
On TP maps however, the goal is that every civ should be playable, and one could go with a civ on a std map pool and have only fair MUs.

Same thing for Germans, except in that case it's probably wiser to nerf fortress shipments (big 4 shipments, plus merc combat) instead of touching unit stats. Then for no TP maps just buff xbows, which not only allowes Germans to be played in colonial but it is also a desirable change for other civs with the same situation (Ports, Spain and French to a lesser extent).

Nerfing Ger's age 3 shipments is standardizing the civ. Ger should rely on the age 3 shipments, because of its design.
Buffing xbows wouldn't make Germany viable in colonial, unless you really, really buff them, in which case bow/pike rush would become OP, and honestly the TP meta is much more interesting than the bow rush meta lol.

"Aside from that, I was also refering to the fact that those civs are not weak in every MU. Ger vs Fre, for example, can be a totally balanced MU on a no TP map with very little tweaks (xbow buff and, if necessary, dopp buff). Same thing goes for all other euro MUs and probably TWC ones. Where you spot an imbalance you can correct it based on civ general features, which again ensures the civ to be consistent on most of conditions. For example among TWC civs only Aztec probably poses a problem on no TP maps. Then you nerf some relevant aspect of Aztecs like maces shipments."

Aztecs are average on TP maps, so if you nerf them in order to make them balanced on no TP maps, they become UP. It's always the same issue. You can't reach the balance on both TP maps and no TP maps.
It's the same issue with Dutch, Brits, India etc .

You didn't prove it honestly. You are just avoiding my argument about dynamic balance. I want all the civs balanced on all maps to a reasonable degree. And I already posted a complete list of changes that would lead to that result, but it has been completely ignored.

Where? Anyway, as I said, it's impossible to have a balance on every map, so this "dynamic balance" wouldn't work.

I think it's the opposite maybe?! You ignoring my point that balance exists on all maps if considered together.

Aoe3 is not a Rock - Paper - Scissors game, in tournaments, all the civs should be viable on most maps. That's why instead of having civs which are good on some maps, and bad on some others, we want to have a map pool where all the civs are good.

I have posted suggestions all the fucking time and they have been either ignored or when adopted they in fact produced good results. Mosque tech change was an idea of mine originally.
My other suggestion are:
- abus gun ROF change should be reverted. Instead ranged base damage should be nerfed to 30 (multiplier against ranged cavalry adjusted accordingly if imbalances emerge);
- mosque card in age 3 should make all mosque techs researchable for free;
- unique card for cavalry archers should also grant some other real buff on top of the bonus against villagers. For example HP, attack, or even just speed.
Those changes combined will give enough chances to Otto to be played on most of conditions, while even enhancing some of their unique features.

That wouldn't make them any better on no TP maps, which is one of the biggest issue.
- Abus ROF change and damage change is almost the same, you're just nitpicking
-Otto can't play a late colonial game, even with a CA and a mosque buff they would lose super hard to a fre or ger semi ff.
It's just small changes, it's not going to change shit.

They are not fine, at the very least from a design POV. They simply scale in a retarded way in mid game and that's evident in team games were such situation happens more often. It's a perfect example on how basing changes on game results only can lead to bad calls. Adding such bonus over the bonus of producing from multiple town center is a design aberration and it should sound the allarm about balance.
Again I gave reasonable alternatives to this, even trying to achieve the same results (cheaper cassas to deplete less food) but they were discarded once again. Let's then keep retarded Port eco in mid game

I don't have anything against EP Port's design, I like it. They have shit units (organ guns and cassadors are really shit), but they can easily invest in economy, which makes them good in late game if you decide to invest in eco (which means you'll have less army).
So they're weak in early game because they have to spend a lot of resources to get a good eco, and they need this eco to keep up with the opponent's army because their units are shit, just like Russia by the way.

Sioux was (and still probably is, but who cares anymore at this point) unbalanced because their not supposed to take advantage of any direct eco mechanics as they alreayd have means to be competitive. Sioux units are OP and they have plenty of facilitations, even in colonial, to make a play out of it. No houses is a permanent wood discount. Units range from above par ot simply OP. They have 4 unit types in colonial. They certainly had to be adjusted to adhere to the EP meta changes (mostly maps) and to compensate for nerfing their supposed best unit (BR) but that's why I proposed stuff like 5v, Mustang card buff, etc.

Ok, you nerf brs and just give them a 5v buff, mustand buff etc. Then what? Well, Sioux is the worst EP civ, totally unplayable (they're probably the worst RE civ on EP maps btw), and you have to fix it.
I don't know if the aura buff was the right idea, I personally have nothing against it, but it was the only idea to give them eco options.

If anything EP goal is to reach balance without differing too much from RE. Now whether that phylosophy is still in place I don't know (actually it's pretty evident we already deviated from there) but it was something we set at the beginning and on which the complete team agreed on.

Yes, EP's initial goal was to reach balance without differing too much from RE, and except Sioux, which was redesigned, that's what we have done.
Sioux had to be redesigned (and I think there was a poll about it, and people agreed), because they couldn't be balanced. That's why EP Sioux differes much from RE Sioux, the design of the other civs hasn't changed .

What you are bringing now - balance on standard (aka TP) maps - is something only you and GS seem completely fond of.

Another goal of the EP was to have better maps than on the RE, which implies that the civs had to be balanced on TP maps.

[stronk]

I like the quality of these posts

[deleted_user0]

i disagree that tp meta is more interesting than bow rush meta. atleast not if the maps are otherwise good. aggressive rushes are very interesting to watch, especially when there is a good defender involved. there is usually much more action and much more strategic decision making. where do you gather? how do you build your base, how do you do this and that etc. i dont see why this would be less interesting than cav raids and skir poking and goon cannon sniping.

[Garja]

I also trust the general opinion of top players. The issue is that, as you know, it's impossible to reach an agreement, and some top players will agree with an idea, some won't. That's why, it's impossible to rely on the "general opinion of top players", because such a thing doesn't exist.
About this "civ feature" thing, you're literally the only one who has an opinion about it, and you end up saying "Russia is a better civ overall than Germany", which is the opposite of the "general opinion of the top players". That alone clearly shows that your feelings about how the civs should works, and the "general opinion of top players" can't become a method.

Well imo this is all the essence about balance and that's why I wanted to make it super clear in the very first post of EP patch forums back then.
Tweaking numbers and stuff is something everyone can do but coming up with a group of top players that agree on the game phylosophy is another task.
I think we should then rework the patch phylosophy, assuming GS and you are so bent over this TP map thing. That approach just kills the game and you have instances of players from every level pointing it out all the time.

If we can't agree that Russia is a better civ overall than Germans, there is a bigger problem than just deciding which maps to use as standard of balance.
While you use it as an argument for setting a standard around TP maps balancing, I use it an argument to say that your perspective on how balance should be achieved and can be achieved is wrong.

So many things are given for granted just because the lack of perspective and the lack of in depth use of the civ. This is both an approach problem and a lack of time/man power problem.

My balance method is pretty simple. Keep things as simple as possible and as similar as possible to the RE patch, while nerfing stuff that clearly emerged as imbalanced through the time. Don't revolutionize civs. If something is not working despite being based on a solid idea, keep testing and tweak numbers until it works.

Well, the debate was that we wanted to have a map pool where our civ would be viable in every situation. If we pick France, we lose to some civs on TP maps, and to some others on no TP maps, so we're not sure we're going to have a fair MU.
On TP maps however, the goal is that every civ should be playable, and one could go with a civ on a std map pool and have only fair MUs.

All civs are viable, you can select any civ can't you? The discussion is then around what you consider viable, isn't it?
I tried to point out already that you can't have a situtation where all civs are equally "viable" in your sense of the word. Even on TP maps, Fre, Ger, etc. will have easier time than other civs simply because the map suits those civs better than others.
Frankly, your method lacks depth and perspective here. It's a huge semplification that only considers some elements, discarding others. The result is both to end up with an incorrect statment (all civs can be equally viable on TP maps) and also ignores or deliberately removes elements from the game.
Example of that is not considering other aspects of the map (open/close, high res/low res, water/no water, good nats/bad nats, etc.).
Another example is discarding side options completely and label them as bad when in fact they are not (Ger and Otto play on no TP maps for example).

Nerfing Ger's age 3 shipments is standardizing the civ. Ger should rely on the age 3 shipments, because of its design.
Buffing xbows wouldn't make Germany viable in colonial, unless you really, really buff them, in which case bow/pike rush would become OP, and honestly the TP meta is much more interesting than the bow rush meta lol.

Well it's not standardizing the civ at all. Not by definition nor by any stretch of the word. If anything, the problem would be consistency within the civ itself but that is easily solved by keeping ulhan bonus consistent while nerfing the base shipment (8 skirm -> 7 skirm, 7 skirms -> 6 skirms, 9 ulhans -> 8 ulhans, etc.).
Simply nerfing that (plus mercs to some extent) would be effective and not intrusive at all.
You can't discard the xbow buff this way honestly. I argue you simply lack the proves to say that. I can tell from my personal experience and from what I've seen by other players that it is very possible that just 1 base damage added to xbows can make the colonial play complete different.
As for the TP meta for interesting compared to bow meta rush, hell no. Action packed games that require high apm, split second decisions are way better than having half of the action and making decisions that rely mostly on what shipment to click.
I have played both type of meta extensively, and in general I enjoy pretty much every style of play. I can tell you TP meta is just worse, overall speaking. You are free to disagree and everyone got different tastes but I'm talking for the good of the game here. Action packed games in colonial (which btw can eventually go fortress) are just more entertaining to watch and to play for the vast majority of people.

Aztecs are average on TP maps, so if you nerf them in order to make them balanced on no TP maps, they become UP. It's always the same issue. You can't reach the balance on both TP maps and no TP maps.
It's the same issue with Dutch, Brits, India etc .

Well, besides the fact that I don't believe they are really average but above average, there is nothing wrong with them being average on TP maps and average on no TP maps by nerfing them. Besides this is all speculation because if Azzies had to be touched they would need several tweaks to their units and just the one I proposed here.
Still tweaking some unit and unit shipments stats is way easier and less intrusive than completely balancing the game around TPs.

Where? Anyway, as I said, it's impossible to have a balance on every map, so this "dynamic balance" wouldn't work.

Make sure to understand what I mean with dynamic balance. Dynamic balance is very few words is basically being average on most conditions, good on few ones, and bad on few others. That is certainly achievable (and rather easily in my opinion). Whether or not that's desired is another story and I'm up to discuss it.

That wouldn't make them any better on no TP maps, which is one of the biggest issue.
- Abus ROF change and damage change is almost the same, you're just nitpicking
-Otto can't play a late colonial game, even with a CA and a mosque buff they would lose super hard to a fre or ger semi ff.
It's just small changes, it's not going to change shit.

Well this is simply not true. It all depends on how much the techs are buffed and how you craft the build according to the map, the opponent and its civ.
Abus ROF is slightly different. Abus overkill infantry anyway most of times so a base damage nerf is mostly targeted vs not destroying cav when kiting together with jans mass.
Anyway,it is perhaps not so important for balance but at least makes the unit funny to use again. And btw Otto don't need 20 range abus from fortress if they would shoot at normal rate.
Otto can play late fortress (that's what you meant I guess) vs those civs on both TP and no TP maps. No TP maps affects Germans and French too. With mosque buff in fact there are big chanches Otto will have the upper hand actually.
A possible idea (around which can develop "new" Otto meta) is to go age III asap and drop TCs. Because Otto receive XP from the mosque and they can be in fortress so quick (6 min ro so) it's basically impossible for those civs to contest it effectively (if they are very aggro Otto can change the plan and we have complete different game).
I already tested this on TP maps and can be done with tower FF or stagecoach semi (tested with 10 jan 5 abus). With tower FF you can go CA which is a very versatile unit and will have 2 cards to be upgraded. Then Otto have like 3 big anti infantry cards in case the opponent tries to punish you for that, plus 2 sets of CM. I don't want to go in detail with this, it's just an idea and definitely needs lot of practice and testing to be perfectioned for competitive play. Still it can be discarded by default.

I don't have anything against EP Port's design, I like it. They have shit units (organ guns and cassadors are really shit), but they can easily invest in economy, which makes them good in late game if you decide to invest in eco (which means you'll have less army).
So they're weak in early game because they have to spend a lot of resources to get a good eco, and they need this eco to keep up with the opponent's army because their units are shit, just like Russia by the way.

Well it's my very personal opinion that my taste for game design tends to be better than most and more refined than yours in this case. For anyone who doesn't see how ugly the vill cost change is for Ports, it's basically like putting ananas on pizza.
I agree tho that Ports are mostly an eco civ with not so special units. That's the civ design as devs conceived it and we shouldn't change it (e.g. infanry ups in colonial). However, I'm only advocating for slightly and indirectly buffing the key age 3 units with a cost buff. Cassas could be less heavy on food and organs could take one less population space (and maybe simply cost less?). Those to me would be already enough of a tool for me to compete with lot of civs, without touching other essential design stuff like the vill cost.
Besides I always advocated for another 100f at start to make the 13v age up consistent and give them smoother early game. But it was always discarded because "it would make 10/10 and stuff like that too good". Well it's possible but we never tested it so we can't tell.

Ok, you nerf brs and just give them a 5v buff, mustand buff etc. Then what? Well, Sioux is the worst EP civ, totally unplayable (they're probably the worst RE civ on EP maps btw), and you have to fix it.
I don't know if the aura buff was the right idea, I personally have nothing against it, but it was the only idea to give them eco options.

5v, mustang buff and 20 range wakina is already enough to compete with a civ like Dutch who right now has an unfair 5 bank semi. We had a game of this MU before teepee buff and honestly the only thing that prevents Sioux from possibly swinging the game in their favor is that they can't keep trading in skirm wars because wakina have less range. So despite the early fortress outmass you simply can't do that. However since EP maps make raiding harder and since you can generally camp with Dutch units in base for long enough to have a solid combo that makes it hard for Sioux.
Please note our game was with 4v and no wakina buff whatsoever.
I think it's harder for Sioux to compete on no TP maps. However with current water changes they can do a water semi. Also one thing usually forgotten is that you can drop a firepit and leave 1 vill dancing for xp. It's not as good as a TP but it helps a bit and people are simply ignoring it.
Also btw teepees can be buffed in a way that they help more in battle as they are supposed to. Instead of conceiving weird eco buffs, we could simply have given more range and tested it. Eventually someone will come with some contain strat that involves aggressive teepees. That is a possible way to play Sioux on no TP maps.

Yes, EP's initial goal was to reach balance without differing too much from RE, and except Sioux, which was redesigned, that's what we have done.
Sioux had to be redesigned (and I think there was a poll about it, and people agreed), because they couldn't be balanced. That's why EP Sioux differes much from RE Sioux, the design of the other civs hasn't changed .

People are still complaining all the time that Sioux have been changed too much. I mean, you can't ignore those complains when all the changes are goofy by themselves and, more importantly, when none of who proposed the changes actually play Sioux.
Overall the game is quite different from RE, at least in regards to the civs I pointed out. Also water changes have been too extreme all ot once.

[Hazza54321]

meme civ

[Garja]

defo not

[gamevideo113]

moesbar civ

[Goodspeed]

meme civ

Let me ask you something: Do you expect us to take your feedback seriously?

[Hazza54321]

You havent so far so no not really, just having fun

[zoom]

Perhaps he'd consider it if it were more constructive.

[Hazza54321]

that ship has sailed

[zoom]

Apart from floating crates, the change that makes the most sense is buffing Territorial Army train-points. It's artificially high and probably bugged, comparing the proto files to actual values with those of other banner armies.

[Garja]

How is 27 not adequate? Or you mean it is actually not 27?

[zoom]

How is 27 not adequate? Or you mean it is actually not 27?

It's actually 33; it's 27 for both individual units in the proto file. Although 27 would be a bit low, in my opinion.

Apart from floating crates, the change that makes the most sense is buffing Territorial Army train-points. It's artificially high and probably bugged, comparing the proto files to actual values with those of other banner armies.

These are the numbers for the War Academy banner-armies (the higher the ratio the better):

Ming army (Keshiks and Qiang Pikemen): 465res; 25tp; 18.6 ratio
Old Han army (Chu Ko Nus and Qiang Pikemen): 435res; 25tp; 17.4 ratio
Standard army (Chu Ko Nus and Steppe Riders): 425res; 25tp; 17 ratio

Forbidden army (Iron Flails and Meteor Hammers): 830res; 33tp (29 on RE); 25.15 ratio (28.62 on RE)
Imperial army (Iron Flails and Arquebusiers): 735res; 33tp (22.27 ratio)
Territorial army (Arquebusiers and Changdao Swordsmen): 540res; 33tp (16.36 ratio)

Chu Ko Nu: 24tp
Keshik: 33tp
Steppe Rider: 35tp
Qiang Pikeman: 24tp

Arquebusier: 27tp
Changdao Swordsman: 27tp
Iron Flail: 40tp
Meteor Hammer: 40tp

Buffing Changdao cost from 95f to 85f and Territorial army train-points from 33 to 29 makes good sense to me, resulting in a ratio of 17.59.

[gamevideo113]

Buffing Changdao cost from 95f to 85f and Territorial army train-points from 33 to 29