Darwin_ wrote:Ports feel so fake on EP rn. I played a game as russia vs. ports on RE and it actually felt like a real game. However, my opponent and myself noted how Colonial Militia is way too strong for ports. Ofc I was playing russia and CM is OP against russia, but I have felt this against other civs as well.
I know I posted some changes that I would like to see, but now that the Team is doing some beta testing I felt like I might say them anyway.
Changes: - villager cost reverted to 100f - +1 food crate - cassador cost changed to 70f 45c (from 85f 35c), and ranged attack +1 - Colonial Militia card removed - Genitours changed to +3 range +10% attack
I agree with with 1, 2 and 3(without +1 attack), but I am against colo militia removal suggestion, because that card only works well with Ports, why remove their trademark feature? Genitours are fine atm......
As a team player, I can safely say that genitours is not "fine atm". It was barely a nerf to one of the more overpowered things in the game. As for colonial militia, if your opponent has 2 tcs defensively with colonial militia, the tc fire is essentially 13 musketeers that have a combined 13000 HP. Colonial militia doesnt slow ports down that much in most matchups, because their other age 1 card options are meh. If you have 2 tc's with cm firing on say, xbow/pike, it is actually more efficient for those 20 villagers to stay in the tc than to be gathering resources. No joke. In that scenario, the tc's would be generating essentially 100 res/second (rof of 1.5, one shot a crossbow or pike, that means 4 die every 3 seconds).
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Darwin_ wrote:Ports feel so fake on EP rn. I played a game as russia vs. ports on RE and it actually felt like a real game. However, my opponent and myself noted how Colonial Militia is way too strong for ports. Ofc I was playing russia and CM is OP against russia, but I have felt this against other civs as well.
I know I posted some changes that I would like to see, but now that the Team is doing some beta testing I felt like I might say them anyway.
Changes: - villager cost reverted to 100f - +1 food crate - cassador cost changed to 70f 45c (from 85f 35c), and ranged attack +1 - Colonial Militia card removed - Genitours changed to +3 range +10% attack
I agree with with 1, 2 and 3(without +1 attack), but I am against colo militia removal suggestion, because that card only works well with Ports, why remove their trademark feature? Genitours are fine atm......
As a team player, I can safely say that genitours is not "fine atm". It was barely a nerf to one of the more overpowered things in the game. As for colonial militia, if your opponent has 2 tcs defensively with colonial militia, the tc fire is essentially 13 musketeers that have a combined 13000 HP. Colonial militia doesnt slow ports down that much in most matchups, because their other age 1 card options are meh. If you have 2 tc's with cm firing on say, xbow/pike, it is actually more efficient for those 20 villagers to stay in the tc than to be gathering resources. No joke. In that scenario, the tc's would be generating essentially 100 res/second (rof of 1.5, one shot a crossbow or pike, that means 4 die every 3 seconds).
Who fights against batch of colo militia? In most cases you retreat, wait until they lose hp, then attack, except in rare occasions where you have much larger mass than your opponent.
I also play team games and fully agree that ports are op in team. They need to be nerfed but not at the cost of losing colonial militia. Its just bad change...
Ports have only one exceptional unit, which is already nerfed wiht rr reduction and genitours nerf. I think its enough.
Darwin_ wrote:Ports feel so fake on EP rn. I played a game as russia vs. ports on RE and it actually felt like a real game. However, my opponent and myself noted how Colonial Militia is way too strong for ports. Ofc I was playing russia and CM is OP against russia, but I have felt this against other civs as well.
I know I posted some changes that I would like to see, but now that the Team is doing some beta testing I felt like I might say them anyway.
Changes: - villager cost reverted to 100f - +1 food crate - cassador cost changed to 70f 45c (from 85f 35c), and ranged attack +1 - Colonial Militia card removed - Genitours changed to +3 range +10% attack
I agree with with 1, 2 and 3(without +1 attack), but I am against colo militia removal suggestion, because that card only works well with Ports, why remove their trademark feature? Genitours are fine atm......
As a team player, I can safely say that genitours is not "fine atm". It was barely a nerf to one of the more overpowered things in the game. As for colonial militia, if your opponent has 2 tcs defensively with colonial militia, the tc fire is essentially 13 musketeers that have a combined 13000 HP. Colonial militia doesnt slow ports down that much in most matchups, because their other age 1 card options are meh. If you have 2 tc's with cm firing on say, xbow/pike, it is actually more efficient for those 20 villagers to stay in the tc than to be gathering resources. No joke. In that scenario, the tc's would be generating essentially 100 res/second (rof of 1.5, one shot a crossbow or pike, that means 4 die every 3 seconds).
Who fights against batch of colo militia? In most cases you retreat, wait until they lose hp, then attack, except in rare occasions where you have much larger mass than your opponent.
I also play team games and fully agree that ports are op in team. They need to be nerfed but not at the cost of losing colonial militia. Its just bad change...
Ports have only one exceptional unit, which is already nerfed wiht rr reduction and genitours nerf. I think its enough.
I wasnt talking about the colonial militia batch, I was more talking about the TC fire improvement, which is the bigger issue imo. I am fine with the extra minutemen, and I think ports could get a unique card instead of colonial militia that allows them to call extra minute men but that doesnt improve tc damage, if people would not like the removal of colonial militia.
Why would it be a bad change to remove colonial militia? So many people have said that it is a sub-optimal card, but people still send it and it can be game-winning against civs that are going to be aggressive. It means that you pretty much cannot fight in their base without the overwhelming advantage in mass or tech.
I understand that Dragoons are their best unit, but if you buff cassadors, then ports would have 2 very good units. Esspecially with dragoon comabt and 4 mams, port's fortress would not be lacking even in the slightest.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Darwin_ wrote:Why would it be a bad change to remove colonial militia? So many people have said that it is a sub-optimal card, but people still send it and it can be game-winning against civs that are going to be aggressive. It means that you pretty much cannot fight in their base without the overwhelming advantage in mass or tech.
I understand that Dragoons are their best unit, but if you buff cassadors, then ports would have 2 very good units. Esspecially with dragoon comabt and 4 mams, port's fortress would not be lacking even in the slightest.
The exact same arguments could be brought against the potential removal, if it's a āsub-optimal" card. And it's pretty easy to overwhelm Ports in mass, assuming we're talking about colonial exclusively, as later on minutemen only get weaker and weaker. Cassadors I find ok, I mean it's still a normal 20-range skirmisher, you could always get gurkhas or wakinas. It's perhaps just that their upgrades are in the fourth age, but I don't think it's so concerning.
Darwin_ wrote:Ports feel so fake on EP rn. I played a game as russia vs. ports on RE and it actually felt like a real game. However, my opponent and myself noted how Colonial Militia is way too strong for ports. Ofc I was playing russia and CM is OP against russia, but I have felt this against other civs as well.
I know I posted some changes that I would like to see, but now that the Team is doing some beta testing I felt like I might say them anyway.
Changes: - villager cost reverted to 100f - +1 food crate - cassador cost changed to 70f 45c (from 85f 35c), and ranged attack +1 - Colonial Militia card removed - Genitours changed to +3 range +10% attack
I agree with with 1, 2 and 3(without +1 attack), but I am against colo militia removal suggestion, because that card only works well with Ports, why remove their trademark feature? Genitours are fine atm......
As a team player, I can safely say that genitours is not "fine atm". It was barely a nerf to one of the more overpowered things in the game. As for colonial militia, if your opponent has 2 tcs defensively with colonial militia, the tc fire is essentially 13 musketeers that have a combined 13000 HP. Colonial militia doesnt slow ports down that much in most matchups, because their other age 1 card options are meh. If you have 2 tc's with cm firing on say, xbow/pike, it is actually more efficient for those 20 villagers to stay in the tc than to be gathering resources. No joke. In that scenario, the tc's would be generating essentially 100 res/second (rof of 1.5, one shot a crossbow or pike, that means 4 die every 3 seconds).
Who fights against batch of colo militia? In most cases you retreat, wait until they lose hp, then attack, except in rare occasions where you have much larger mass than your opponent.
I also play team games and fully agree that ports are op in team. They need to be nerfed but not at the cost of losing colonial militia. Its just bad change...
Ports have only one exceptional unit, which is already nerfed wiht rr reduction and genitours nerf. I think its enough.
I wasnt talking about the colonial militia batch, I was more talking about the TC fire improvement, which is the bigger issue imo. I am fine with the extra minutemen, and I think ports could get a unique card instead of colonial militia that allows them to call extra minute men but that doesnt improve tc damage, if people would not like the removal of colonial militia.
Why would it be a bad change to remove colonial militia? So many people have said that it is a sub-optimal card, but people still send it and it can be game-winning against civs that are going to be aggressive. It means that you pretty much cannot fight in their base without the overwhelming advantage in mass or tech.
I understand that Dragoons are their best unit, but if you buff cassadors, then ports would have 2 very good units. Esspecially with dragoon comabt and 4 mams, port's fortress would not be lacking even in the slightest.
I think you are exaggerating a bit, especially when you take into account that colo militia is a full card investment and it also cost resources. I mean its not exactly cheap, most ppl would rather not sending it, its a forced move...
About port esoc changes in general, I have to admit i liked 80f vills from the get go. One single change solved ports hunger problem and made em viable. As times passed and meta changed, especially in team games i noticed their BO became way to smooth, if not to say too strong. Now i think change should be reverted, because it is not ports civ bonus(russia already have cheaper vills civ bonus). Reducing cassas prices sounds very good, it could yield good results, after testing ofc....
Darwin_ wrote:Why would it be a bad change to remove colonial militia? So many people have said that it is a sub-optimal card, but people still send it and it can be game-winning against civs that are going to be aggressive. It means that you pretty much cannot fight in their base without the overwhelming advantage in mass or tech.
I understand that Dragoons are their best unit, but if you buff cassadors, then ports would have 2 very good units. Esspecially with dragoon comabt and 4 mams, port's fortress would not be lacking even in the slightest.
The exact same arguments could be brought against the potential removal, if it's a āsub-optimal" card. And it's pretty easy to overwhelm Ports in mass, assuming we're talking about colonial exclusively, as later on minutemen only get weaker and weaker. Cassadors I find ok, I mean it's still a normal 20-range skirmisher, you could always get gurkhas or wakinas. It's perhaps just that their upgrades are in the fourth age, but I don't think it's so concerning.
For late age 3 engagements it can be a problem, because advance arsenal is the only way to properly upgrade cassas without aging.
Atomiswave wrote:For late age 3 engagements it can be a problem, because advance arsenal is the only way to properly upgrade cassas without aging.
You have CIR from a regular Arsenal, which is actually very good on EP. I meant that you'd rather age up to the Industrial in most games as Ports than needed to send a Cassadors upgrade most often.
Atomiswave wrote:For late age 3 engagements it can be a problem, because advance arsenal is the only way to properly upgrade cassas without aging.
You have CIR from a regular Arsenal, which is actually very good on EP. I meant that you'd rather age up to the Industrial in most games as Ports than needed to send a Cassadors upgrade most often.
Like i said before, CIR should only affect HI, not ranged cav. I sincerely hope that bug will be squashed in the near future. And yes, its better for ports to age up if they are in position to do so. If they are not, AA is nice alternative....
The reason I say we should nerf Colonial militia is that it gives you an auto-win against russia/otto, and really helps against azzy/brits/spain/china. Against the first two civs, it literally removes all skill from the matchup besides herding. All you have to do is make some units and send cm, deflect the early pressure, age up, make units and win.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Darwin_ wrote:The reason I say we should nerf Colonial militia is that it gives you an auto-win against russia/otto, and really helps against azzy/brits/spain/china. Against the first two civs, it literally removes all skill from the matchup besides herding. All you have to do is make some units and send cm, deflect the early pressure, age up, make units and win.
If CM is an auto-win against otto and russia, then why are these civs rated amongst the top on RE while ports are ranked amongst the worst?
I assume you are talking about RE primarily, since CM sees far more play there than on EP.
We watched the tragedy unfold
We did as we were told
We bought and sold
It was the greatest show on earth
Darwin_ wrote:The reason I say we should nerf Colonial militia is that it gives you an auto-win against russia/otto, and really helps against azzy/brits/spain/china. Against the first two civs, it literally removes all skill from the matchup besides herding. All you have to do is make some units and send cm, deflect the early pressure, age up, make units and win.
If CM is an auto-win against otto and russia, then why are these civs rated amongst the top on RE while ports are ranked amongst the worst?
I assume you are talking about RE primarily, since CM sees far more play there than on EP.
I was talking about EP primarily, but even on RE on ESOC maps, CM does well against Otto and is still an auto-win against russia. On most RE maps, it doesnt really matter what Ports does against those civs, as they will still run out of food by 10 minutes.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
Tuning in a bit late here but i've seen there was a lot of discussion about the settler discount change, and many people were arguing that EP ports are too strong. So i'm wondering, what if the bonus was staggered through the ages (AoE2 india anyone?)? Like 95 food in discovery, 90 in colonial, 85 in fortress and 80 in industrial. Generally speaking this change would be somewhat faithful to the original design of the civ, being slow at the start with the boom becoming smoother as more tcs are added later in the game.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
gamevideo113 wrote:Tuning in a bit late here but i've seen there was a lot of discussion about the settler discount change, and many people were arguing that EP ports are too strong. So i'm wondering, what if the bonus was staggered through the ages (AoE2 india anyone?)? Like 95 food in discovery, 90 in colonial, 85 in fortress and 80 in industrial. Generally speaking this change would be somewhat faithful to the original design of the civ, being slow at the start with the boom becoming smoother as more tcs are added later in the game.
Hmm, that's a very interesting idea, fresh and at the same time seems to fit the Portuguese. I like it a lot!
gamevideo113 wrote:Tuning in a bit late here but i've seen there was a lot of discussion about the settler discount change, and many people were arguing that EP ports are too strong. So i'm wondering, what if the bonus was staggered through the ages (AoE2 india anyone?)? Like 95 food in discovery, 90 in colonial, 85 in fortress and 80 in industrial. Generally speaking this change would be somewhat faithful to the original design of the civ, being slow at the start with the boom becoming smoother as more tcs are added later in the game.
@Goodspeed This is a good idea, I think the team must consider adding it in the future
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?