[Armag] diarouga wrote:Yeah the maps help as much as the buff.
I dont get this, even before the patch when people were talking about balance on RE they were talking about the same ESOCmaps, and were still saying port sucks
[Armag] diarouga wrote:Yeah the maps help as much as the buff.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
ovi12 wrote:[Armag] diarouga wrote:Yeah the maps help as much as the buff.
I dont get this, even before the patch when people were talking about balance on RE they were talking about the same ESOCmaps, and were still saying port sucks
[Armag] diarouga wrote:ovi12 wrote:[Armag] diarouga wrote:Yeah the maps help as much as the buff.
I dont get this, even before the patch when people were talking about balance on RE they were talking about the same ESOCmaps, and were still saying port sucks
Because nobody tried them.
RE port on esoc maps are at EP port level on no hunt maps.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
I think people are always going to complain at least a bit about balance. To be honest, I think having favorite civs and stuff makes it easy to complain about balance, and it's always pleasant for the ego to blame losses on balance (even also more painful to lose a mirror, which I for example dodge for that reason).watching wrote:notification
That would most likely be a nerf. Arguendo though, try also reverting the food crate nerf.pecelot wrote:So maybe a good compromise would be to increase Portuguese villagers' cost to 90 food? Good players say it's not the best of changes, while the others think the opposite. I can see it being somewhat broken in team games, too.
While your thought of changing as little as possible is one the EP, with its goal until further notice, shares, there are some problems with your logic.watching wrote:To fix all arguments and to correct the mistake of changing too many things that clearly not everyone agrees with. I think all changes to civs should be reverted except the few nerfs that are obviously needed and 90% of the people agree with. So instead of buffing civs, just nerf the civs/shipments that need the nerfs the most.
Not only does this probably remove the arguments and constant bickering but it also will make ESOC patch more attractive. As it stands now, some people feel like it's too different than what they are comfortable/familiar with.
Is this even in response to my post? Because I agree that is the only way in which it is ugly. In fact, Im not even arguing its perceived beauty in the first place. Disregarding balance, I am arguing that it's a bad change because it to some extent infringes upon another civilization's design, and even fundamentally alters the design of the Portuguese civilization itself, by diminishing its inherently negative aspect, which is an absolutely integral part of it.Jerom wrote:The 80f vills is realistically only ugly when you see the discreptancy between other civs. For all practical purposes it is the most beautiful change ever, as the civ plays out exactly the same but then actually viable.
This. Are Ports actually too strong now or what are we on about?ovi12 wrote:[Armag] diarouga wrote:Show hidden quotes
Because nobody tried them.
RE port on esoc maps are at EP port level on no hunt maps.
And what is EP port level on no food map?
Goodspeed wrote:This. Are Ports actually too strong now or what are we on about?ovi12 wrote:Show hidden quotes
And what is EP port level on no food map?
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Aizamk wrote:All I see is a bunch of nobs who age with 12 or more vills as ports.
You guys should play Go.
zoom wrote:While your thought of changing as little as possible is one the EP, with its goal until further notice, shares, there are some problems with your logic.watching wrote:To fix all arguments and to correct the mistake of changing too many things that clearly not everyone agrees with. I think all changes to civs should be reverted except the few nerfs that are obviously needed and 90% of the people agree with. So instead of buffing civs, just nerf the civs/shipments that need the nerfs the most.
Not only does this probably remove the arguments and constant bickering but it also will make ESOC patch more attractive. As it stands now, some people feel like it's too different than what they are comfortable/familiar with.
First, implementing only nerfs has a negative psychological impact on people and the patch by connotation. Second, there is no such thing as a change "not everyone agrees with." Third, regardless of what is or is not done there would be plenty of arguments – this is neither a problem as such, nor avoidable. Fourth and last, In order to theoretically achieve the same state of balance by only either of buffing or nerfing, not less but more changes and to more civilizations would be required than by doing both. Accordingly, balance testing and balancing would both become more difficult and less efficient than it otherwise is.
However, the above does not by any means discredit the view, for example, that only French, Germans, Iroquois and Ottomans should be nerfed. That is merely a matter of opinion; some desire extensive, sweeping changes with improvements to options and viability at the expense of balance, and others minimal or no improvements to even balance. Evidently, the EP has settled for the main goal of making all civilizations reasonably competitively viable, changing as little as possible in achieving this goal. A few, notable exceptions have been made largely by popular demand. With regards to your point, though, I will say that I consider the popularity of the changes made to be of vital importance, and the most popular option should always be pursued, so long as it doesn't compromise balance to any relevant degree.
Much wisdomAizamk wrote:You guys should play Go.
zoom wrote:Is this even in response to my post? Because I agree that is the only way in which it is ugly. In fact, Im not even arguing its perceived beauty in the first place. Disregarding balance, I am arguing that it's a bad change because it to some extent infringes upon another civilization's design, and even fundamentally alters the design of the Portuguese civilization itself, by diminishing its inherently negative aspect, which is an absolutely integral part of it.Jerom wrote:The 80f vills is realistically only ugly when you see the discreptancy between other civs. For all practical purposes it is the most beautiful change ever, as the civ plays out exactly the same but then actually viable.
In short, the Portuguese's increased need for food as a result of its increased ability to train Settlers must not be directly alleviated by decreasing the civilization's cost of Settlers, because the latter is an essential, inherent element of the former. It isn't necessarily the case that is must be alleviated at all in the first place.
Jerom wrote:zoom wrote:Is this even in response to my post? Because I agree that is the only way in which it is ugly. In fact, Im not even arguing its perceived beauty in the first place. Disregarding balance, I am arguing that it's a bad change because it to some extent infringes upon another civilization's design, and even fundamentally alters the design of the Portuguese civilization itself, by diminishing its inherently negative aspect, which is an absolutely integral part of it.Jerom wrote:The 80f vills is realistically only ugly when you see the discreptancy between other civs. For all practical purposes it is the most beautiful change ever, as the civ plays out exactly the same but then actually viable.
In short, the Portuguese's increased need for food as a result of its increased ability to train Settlers must not be directly alleviated by decreasing the civilization's cost of Settlers, because the latter is an essential, inherent element of the former. It isn't necessarily the case that is must be alleviated at all in the first place.
You are aware that this matters ~1 bison every 20 villagers you make? I get the point theoretically yet, but when maxing out on vills we are talking about 1700f, less than 5 animals of a herd. The difference from map to map is so much larger than this effect on ports, and I dont see how it changes the way the civ plays out fundamentally.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?
Which streams do you wish to see listed?