User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
ESOC Media Team
 
Posts: 11422
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

01 Aug 2016, 22:52

@watching 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).

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 6367
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan
  • Link to post
  • Quote

01 Aug 2016, 23:56

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.
That would most likely be a nerf. Arguendo though, try also reverting the food crate nerf.

The change is supposedly bad for balance since it buffs the civilization slightly too much in general, and quite a bit too much in team games, where it is alleged to barely be needed at all. It's potentially bad for balance since it diminishes the need for map-control, beyond the extent of the average EP map, resulting in an even more improved ability to turtle, which was already already the civilization's strong suit.

In my opinion, however, the by far greater issue with the change, lies in its effects on balance–game design: not only does it completely unnecessarily infringe upon another civilization's unique design feature – it does so while completely unncessarily infringing on the civilization's own one as well. To me, the Portuguese civilization's increased Settler production and its increased need for food to sustain it are equally essential to its design. The two are different but related manifestations of the very same design feature; one reflective of its inherent strength and the other of its inherent weakness. The default balance between the two must not be disturbed, lest the design feature itself be altered. So long as there exist alternative means of achieving reasonable balance, this should be avoided. In accordance with the stated goals of the patch so far, this view should, at least theoretically, be ever more relevant.
sudmakmak wrote:This patch Keshik don't have buff anti cavalry = noob patch2.0
and don't have nerf hard japan = noob patch2.0
because all more noob player at this patch = noob logic.
or they maybe have boyfriend.(japanese boyfriend fuck your ass them)
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
ESOC Media Team
 
Posts: 11422
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 00:00

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.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
Japan Aizamk
Lancer
 
Posts: 589
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 01:15

Just give ports 3 more vills and disable houses in age 1
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
ESOC Media Team
 
Posts: 11422
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 10:44

Just disable houses, then ports top civ again.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 6367
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 12:48

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.
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.

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 "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.
sudmakmak wrote:This patch Keshik don't have buff anti cavalry = noob patch2.0
and don't have nerf hard japan = noob patch2.0
because all more noob player at this patch = noob logic.
or they maybe have boyfriend.(japanese boyfriend fuck your ass them)
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 6367
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 13:14

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.
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.

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.
sudmakmak wrote:This patch Keshik don't have buff anti cavalry = noob patch2.0
and don't have nerf hard japan = noob patch2.0
because all more noob player at this patch = noob logic.
or they maybe have boyfriend.(japanese boyfriend fuck your ass them)
User avatar
Poland pecelot
ESOC Community Team
 
Posts: 6293
ESO: Pezet
Location: Warsaw, Poland
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 14:34

What exactly do you suggest, then, or am I missing something very obvious I should be ashamed for?
My Tips of the Day and COMPSTOMP threads! :flowers:
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired ESOC staff
 
Posts: 4545
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 14:38

ovi12 wrote:
[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.


And what is EP port level on no food map?
This. Are Ports actually too strong now or what are we on about?
Whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

29
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
 
Posts: 5978
Location: France
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 17:31

Goodspeed wrote:
ovi12 wrote:
[Armag] diarouga wrote:
ovi12 wrote: 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.


And what is EP port level on no food map?
This. Are Ports actually too strong now or what are we on about?

Hum, they're strong but not nearly as strong as France used to be.
They still lose japan, brit, spain and France.
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 3505
Location: Paris
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 18:11

Are you sure ports > france with the latest nerfs ?
Also not sure they lose to brit with 80f vils
"Interactive stream" !

Auch wenn du so weit weg bist, habe ich nur einen Traum: dich zu küssen, neben mir zu spüren und in meinen Armen zu halten.

Image
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
 
Posts: 5978
Location: France
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 18:15

They lose to brit, and considering how hopeless port vs France was, I'm pretty sure -100f won't change shit.
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 3505
Location: Paris
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 18:20

Hopeless ? The falcs are an issue but I think ports can do fine otherwise
"Interactive stream" !

Auch wenn du so weit weg bist, habe ich nur einen Traum: dich zu küssen, neben mir zu spüren und in meinen Armen zu halten.

Image
User avatar
Japan Aizamk
Lancer
 
Posts: 589
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 18:29

All I see is a bunch of nobs who age with 12 or more vills as ports.

You guys should play Go.
User avatar
France iNcog
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 9257
ESO: status = SAVED!!1²
Location: LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION
  • Link to post
  • Quote

02 Aug 2016, 18:45

Aizamk wrote:All I see is a bunch of nobs who age with 12 or more vills as ports.

You guys should play Go.



woah ther
Fear is freedom! Subjugation is liberation! Contradiction is truth!
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
ESOC Media Team
 
Posts: 11422
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

03 Aug 2016, 01:04

Ports change makes them strong, which is nice. Its also a clean change, which seems to be in line with how the ports benefit can be used.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
No Flag watching
Crossbow
 
Posts: 43
  • Link to post
  • Quote

03 Aug 2016, 21:17

zoom wrote:
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.
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.

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.


To reply to your points, as for the first point I think that fixing "nerfing" only certain civs like Iro/otto and MAYBE some small changes here and there to other civs that are well known problems, will not have as much of a negative impact on how the patch is viewed as you claim it would. It just depends on how you rationalize it to the people. Your 2nd and 3rd points would be true if not for the fact that certain civs and shipments are widely regarded as OP on RE and fixing them would not create as much argument as there is now or as you claim it would. Your 4th point is arguable, I personally believe that you don't need to buff certain civs to make them stronger but by "nerfing" the obvious issues you would indirectly buffing the other civs aswell. And To finish off, with the added bonus of not making the ESOC patch feel alot different than the RE patch which is a big hurdle to some people I spoke too.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired ESOC staff
 
Posts: 4545
  • Link to post
  • Quote

03 Aug 2016, 21:20

Aizamk wrote:You guys should play Go.
Much wisdom
Whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

29
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
ESOC Dev Team
 
Posts: 1519
ESO: _NiceKING_
  • Link to post
  • Quote

04 Aug 2016, 15:45

Idk if this is the right place but are there any plans to change something about ports villager?
80f looks weird, same vill, same gathering rate, same training time.
Image
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
ESOC Media Team
 
Posts: 11422
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 02:12

Other than that it is still the best change of the patch. Yes it looks weird, but if there was a line saying "cheaper vills" at civ bonuses of ports from the beginning of aoe you'd have never complained about it.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
ESOC Media Team
 
Posts: 11422
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 02:15

zoom wrote:
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.
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.

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.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
No Flag ovi12
Jaeger
 
Posts: 3584
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 02:20

Jerom wrote:
zoom wrote:
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.
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.

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.

Yes I've bee saying that since the patch was made lol
Veni_Vidi_Vici_W wrote:i learned new BO for eating my pommegranate
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 3505
Location: Paris
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 02:25

It's not even about the cheaper vils being ugly or not, it's just that it makes ports too strong. Ports already got a huge buff called esoc maps, they maybe don't need an extra buff as big as 80f vils. Maybe just a small cassadors buff + cassadors combat in age 3 would be enough to make it balanced.
"Interactive stream" !

Auch wenn du so weit weg bist, habe ich nur einen Traum: dich zu küssen, neben mir zu spüren und in meinen Armen zu halten.

Image
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
ESOC Media Team
 
Posts: 11422
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 02:37

I dont think theres much data backing up that ports are at all too strong right now.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 3505
Location: Paris
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 02:55

Of course they are, they were already really strong last patch and now france and ger got nerfed, some of port's hard match ups.
"Interactive stream" !

Auch wenn du so weit weg bist, habe ich nur einen Traum: dich zu küssen, neben mir zu spüren und in meinen Armen zu halten.

Image

Forum Info

Return to “ESOC Civilizations Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest