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

05 Aug 2016, 05:18

Yeah but they're not as good as fre and ger were, so we can t really say that they're too strong.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 6339
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 09:50

Jerom wrote:I dont think theres much data backing up that ports are at all too strong right now.
This is definitely true. There are lot of opinions claiming it though, which surely counts for something. The main issue to me, again, is that it's just a bad change.
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: 11224
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 10:24

zoom wrote:
Jerom wrote:I dont think theres much data backing up that ports are at all too strong right now.
This is definitely true. There are lot of opinions claiming it though, which surely counts for something. The main issue to me, again, is that it's just a bad change.

I think I made a post adressing or maybe even annihilating your objections to 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
New Zealand zoom
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 6339
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 10:31

pecelot wrote:What exactly do you suggest, then, or am I missing something very obvious I should be ashamed for?
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.
You're right of course that it hardly does so on its own, but together with ESOC maps, however, I think it becomes a completely unnecessary problem. The point I'm making though, is that we shouldn't lessen the civilization's food expenses by making Settlers cheaper, because it is not in accordance with the civilization's design, but in fact in conflict with it. A better way of doing this would be to decrease Cassador cost & buff the "8 Cassadors" shipment to 9. This would make the unit more attractive, completely do away with the design issues and affect team-game balance far less.
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: 11224
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 10:35

And would still decrease the food requirements, plus not actually fix the inherent problems of the civ.

"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: 6339
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 10:39

Jerom wrote:And would still decrease the food requirements, plus not actually fix the inherent problems of the civ.
What I am saying is that unless it makes Portuguese under-powered by design, the inherent weakness of the civilization (just as that of any civilization) is a good thing that should not be preserved rather than removed.
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: 11224
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 10:44

zoom wrote:
Jerom wrote:And would still decrease the food requirements, plus not actually fix the inherent problems of the civ.
What I am saying is that the inherent weakness of the civilization is a good thing. Unless it makes Portuguese inherently under-powered, it should not be removed.

the inherent weakness being that you cant actually use your strong point? Is that the one we are talking about?

"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
Switzerland _venox_
Howdah
 
Posts: 1723
ESO: _Venox_
Location: Switzerland
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 11:40

Maybe Portuguese should focus more on getting map control for resources to gather rather than booming fully and having no map control.
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 6339
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 11:48

Jerom wrote:
zoom wrote:
Jerom wrote:And would still decrease the food requirements, plus not actually fix the inherent problems of the civ.
What I am saying is that the inherent weakness of the civilization is a good thing. Unless it makes Portuguese inherently under-powered, it should not be removed.

the inherent weakness being that you cant actually use your strong point? Is that the one we are talking about?
You, it would seem, are talking about an absolute inherent weakness that completely limits the civilization's strength, handicapping the player and making the civilization unstrategic and punishing to play. This is an extreme perspective I consider unreasonable (especially on EP maps). I, on the other hand, am talking about a relative inherent weakness that partially limits the civilization's strength, challenging the player and making the civilization strategic and rewarding to play. This is a moderate perspective I consider reasonable (especially on EP maps).
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: 6339
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 11:50

_venox_ wrote:Maybe Portuguese should focus more on getting map control for resources to gather rather than booming fully and having no map control.
Maybe they should. Maybe they should...
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
Switzerland _venox_
Howdah
 
Posts: 1723
ESO: _Venox_
Location: Switzerland
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 14:04

I mean, what are 50 villagers without anything useful to gather compared to 30 + map control (due to never skipping training units)?
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired ESOC staff
 
Posts: 4439
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 14:14

Ports age up with a very weak (13 to 14 vill) eco, which means any strategy that pursues early map control is going to be unrealistic against a civ with a reasonable timing before 10 minutes. I've tried to play Ports that way on RE patch, after all it's the only way to play them on those maps, but it just doesn't work. If Ports were able to get 3 TCs spread out across the map AND enough units to defend them from early timings, they would be OP. In order to make this a realistic strategy without making Ports OP, we would have to give them a 3 vill shipment and apply some major nerfs across the board to make sure they don't rek everything. This may be the best course of action if we want Ports to be as interesting as their design allows them to be, but it's not exactly in line with our philosophy plus it's too much work to test properly.
My point is it's easy to say Ports should be a civ that focuses on map control with their free TCs, but considering those same TCs are also booming machines it's just not possible to balance the civ around that unless we were to redesign them in a big way.

Some of the complaints about the 80f vill change are valid, but I still think its pros far outweigh its cons and am personally of the opinion that it's one of the best changes we made. Whether it made Ports too strong remains to be seen, but it can be easily tweaked in that case.
Whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

58
User avatar
Japan Aizamk
Lancer
 
Posts: 576
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 14:47

Goodspeed wrote:13 to 14 vill

:roll:

That's precisely why people generally can't take map control with their tcs... :hmm:
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired ESOC staff
 
Posts: 4439
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 14:56

Is 10/10 actually viable? I haven't tested it
Whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

58
User avatar
Switzerland _venox_
Howdah
 
Posts: 1723
ESO: _Venox_
Location: Switzerland
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 15:28

Almost all of the esoc maps have enough resources that the Portuguese don't have to pursue early map control, this is not what I meant. What I meant was during the midgame when most people boom from 3 tcs they should focus more on having something to gather from with their villagers by actively trying to get map control, rather than booming from 3 tcs and losing fights for map control. Since you're quite knowledgeable about timings GS, maybe a timing push somewhere during the midgame to get access to more resources could work. Once accomplished one can start booming again. This may be comparable to the Zerg in sc2 where they use all their eggs to hatch workers and then stop to produce a wave of units and pursue booming again.

The change in cost from 100f to 80f allows the Portuguese to have more time before having to push out for food resources and may also mean that they have to cut less villagers for army.

Edit: Another comparison to not overdo the boom might be the British, who also boom as much as their enemy allows them to. Again after the philosophy that I'd rather have 30 villagers who work than 50 who can't.
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
 
Posts: 5978
Location: France
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 15:30

Goodspeed wrote:Is 10/10 actually viable? I haven't tested it

I haven't tried 10/10 into age 2 but the 10/10 ff is pretty good. It allows you to send 1000w/1000g vs China while having the map xd.
User avatar
No Flag ovi12
Jaeger
 
Posts: 3549
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 15:47

[Armag] diarouga wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:Is 10/10 actually viable? I haven't tested it

I haven't tried 10/10 into age 2 but the 10/10 ff is pretty good. It allows you to send 1000w/1000g vs China while having the map xd.

Yeah I mean it really isn't much less eco if you idle your TC for 40 secs thats 1.5 vills lost, but if you're able to age up 30s min earlier than normal then that's 1 vills gained from the second TC, so it's just -.5 of a vill. And if you age up 1 min earlier than normal age up (unlikely tho I guess) then its a +.5 vill for your eco.

I made a thread about it last years, I think I calculated 1k gold was worth about 12 skirms, so maybe 13-14 cass. Not to mention 1k wood.
Veni_Vidi_Vici_W wrote:i learned new BO for eating my pommegranate
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
 
Posts: 4157
ESO: Garja
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 15:57

Port age up with 14.3 vills due to economic theory card. And they age up with virtually 500w (due to free TC that gives 10 pop). So they're not terrible in that regard.
As for taking map control in mid game, one thing that none tried with the 100f vill cost is to spam vills from just two TCs instead of three, in order to have some more spare resources for military production. 3 TC boom is generally overkill anyway vs civs that semi FF with a timing. Another option is to boom from 3 TCs till a certain amount of vills and then stop vill production to catch up with opponent's army, just to start making vills again once you stabilized.

As for 10/10 I don't know much about it, but ye placing a TC in the middle can be quite annoying for some civs.
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 3431
Location: Paris
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 16:45

Tbh I think people might just rush age 3 too fast with ports, I don't see the point of having 3 tcs most of the time, especially since you're likely to lose your 3rd tc / not be able to place it to take map when you (semi) ff.

Goodspeed wrote:Ports age up with a very weak (13 to 14 vill) eco, which means any strategy that pursues early map control is going to be unrealistic against a civ with a reasonable timing before 10 minutes. I've tried to play Ports that way on RE patch, after all it's the only way to play them on those maps, but it just doesn't work. If Ports were able to get 3 TCs spread out across the map AND enough units to defend them from early timings, they would be OP. In order to make this a realistic strategy without making Ports OP, we would have to give them a 3 vill shipment and apply some major nerfs across the board to make sure they don't rek everything. This may be the best course of action if we want Ports to be as interesting as their design allows them to be, but it's not exactly in line with our philosophy plus it's too much work to test properly.
My point is it's easy to say Ports should be a civ that focuses on map control with their free TCs, but considering those same TCs are also booming machines it's just not possible to balance the civ around that unless we were to redesign them in a big way.

It's pretty hard to break the forward tc though. You have a set of mm + a shipment to defend it, tc fire, 6500 hp. Pretty sure it's almost impossible to destroy that tc in a colonial war, except maybe with a few civs like otto/azzy/russia.
Same in fortress, I don't think ports easily lose a tc, except vs a a fast falc push like vs france or spain
My Youtube channel

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
New Zealand zoom
ESOC Patch Team
 
Posts: 6339
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan
  • Link to post
  • Quote

05 Aug 2016, 17:09

Goodspeed wrote:Ports age up with a very weak (13 to 14 vill) eco, which means any strategy that pursues early map control is going to be unrealistic against a civ with a reasonable timing before 10 minutes. I've tried to play Ports that way on RE patch, after all it's the only way to play them on those maps, but it just doesn't work. If Ports were able to get 3 TCs spread out across the map AND enough units to defend them from early timings, they would be OP. In order to make this a realistic strategy without making Ports OP, we would have to give them a 3 vill shipment and apply some major nerfs across the board to make sure they don't rek everything. This may be the best course of action if we want Ports to be as interesting as their design allows them to be, but it's not exactly in line with our philosophy plus it's too much work to test properly.
My point is it's easy to say Ports should be a civ that focuses on map control with their free TCs, but considering those same TCs are also booming machines it's just not possible to balance the civ around that unless we were to redesign them in a big way.

Some of the complaints about the 80f vill change are valid, but I still think its pros far outweigh its cons and am personally of the opinion that it's one of the best changes we made. Whether it made Ports too strong remains to be seen, but it can be easily tweaked in that case.
While it is unquestionable that Portuguese, because of its inherent weakness, is underpowered on the average (land) RE-map, it is highly questionable on the average ESOC-map. Although your post implies otherwise, I'm sure you're perfectly aware that on the average ESOC-map the conditions are completely different. Therefore, it's disappointing that you attempt to justify the need for such a buff by clinging on to and applying the same assumption of irrelevant RE-centric logic that misguidedly prompted making the change in the first place, which is quite telling itself.

Considering the above, I find it absolutely ridiculous that you would use that very same weakness as an argument for such a change, when it's an obvious argument against it – the civilization should find map-control challenging for balance & design purposes alike, and map changes have already diminished this severely (which is necessary for achieving reasonable balance and therefore desirable). Amazingly enough, without realizing it, you even explained it yourself: "If Ports were able to get 3 TCs spread out across the map AND enough units to defend them from early timings, they would be OP." Indeed, this describes my entire point: Portuguese should have its strength naturally limited by its corresponding weakness, unless changing this is absolutely necessary .

Its pros may very well outweigh its cons. Again – this has nothing to do with the argument; the argument is that the change is, in several ways, inferior to its alternative(s) and that choosing it regardless of this is a mistake, however uncomfortable admitting that might be.

Please accept and acknowledge that the change was made on a fundamentally flawed logical basis, and that it, without any justification, negates the doubly desirable weakness of the civilization even further than map changes.
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: 6339
ESO: Funnu
Location: Ramadanistan
  • Link to post
  • Quote

06 Aug 2016, 14:24

watching wrote:
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.
First of all, I never made any claim as to how much negative impact it would have. I am simply saying that nerfing is generally perceived as negative; particularly when compared to buffing. Since it would be sheer speculation, I thought it sensible not to make any such assumptions in my previous post. Unfortunately, it seems I did not make this clear enough. My only point is that it's one of several clear arguments against such an approach, and that it's not insignificant. It's particularly relevant for the average-skill player as well as those who play the subject civilization more than others. Rationalization would not at all neutralize the impact; it would only prevent it from being even worse than by default, because it cannot change the negative connotations logically associated with a nerf.

Second, your alleged refutation of my next couple of points, is again logically flawed. As much as I did mistakedly and stupidly employ the double-negative, your argument is irrelevant to the validity of the former (second) point. Furthermore, please take into consideration how I am refering to changes in particular, as opposed to inter-civilization balance in general: while reaching a consensus on what the more pressing balance problems are is relatively easy, agreeing on the extent and nature of the related changes is either barely or no easier than it is for any other, unrelated, change; although tolerance of the changes eventually made is likely to be greater. As for the latter (third) point, I keenly note that your streak of making logically unfounded assumptions to subsequently argue against, is well and truly alive: The only thing I said (or implied) on the prevalence of arguments about the inclusion and exclusion of changes, is that it – absolutely independently – will be high. In light of this by you repeatedly committed fallacy, it's ironic (yet hardly coincidental) that it is not I, but you who also uttered "To fix all arguments..." and "Not only does this probably remove the arguments and constant bickering..." describing the presumably great extent of your argument's various effects. While I, like you, do think that there would be less disagreement on the more extreme balance issues, there would converesely be far more on all others, which leads me to make the following emphasis: You still seem to be disregarding the fact that there are many who would prefer more changes, and that being even closer to RE than we already are would make the patch even less attractive to them. Hopefully you realize how biased and narrow-minded such a one-sided perspective is. I repeat (from my previous post):

"... 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."

Moving on to the fourth point, the straw-man streak of #DOOM continues! Your logic is correct and I fully agree with it but it does in no way contradict the point I actually made: to achieve the same theoretical balance you would need more total changes except for extreme, statistically and practically unrealistic (see deviation from the norm) scenarios, which means that a strategy of "only nerfs" is also extremely likely to be less efficient (read: have a lower net balance effect) than an in this regard neutral strategy. And to finish off – managing the impressive feat of five out of five straw-men – "the added bonus of not making the ESOC patch feel alot different than the RE patch" is related to a balancing strategy of less changes, one with which I have no issues. The entire argument we are having is about such a strategy of "only nerfs," one with which I do have issues because there are logical net-negatives compared to a neutral balancing strategy.

Considering you scored five out of five, I strongly urge you to read the following article: Straw Man
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 Goodspeed
Retired ESOC staff
 
Posts: 4439
  • Link to post
  • Quote

06 Aug 2016, 14:34

Kaiserklein wrote:Tbh I think people might just rush age 3 too fast with ports, I don't see the point of having 3 tcs most of the time, especially since you're likely to lose your 3rd tc / not be able to place it to take map when you (semi) ff.

Goodspeed wrote:Ports age up with a very weak (13 to 14 vill) eco, which means any strategy that pursues early map control is going to be unrealistic against a civ with a reasonable timing before 10 minutes. I've tried to play Ports that way on RE patch, after all it's the only way to play them on those maps, but it just doesn't work. If Ports were able to get 3 TCs spread out across the map AND enough units to defend them from early timings, they would be OP. In order to make this a realistic strategy without making Ports OP, we would have to give them a 3 vill shipment and apply some major nerfs across the board to make sure they don't rek everything. This may be the best course of action if we want Ports to be as interesting as their design allows them to be, but it's not exactly in line with our philosophy plus it's too much work to test properly.
My point is it's easy to say Ports should be a civ that focuses on map control with their free TCs, but considering those same TCs are also booming machines it's just not possible to balance the civ around that unless we were to redesign them in a big way.

It's pretty hard to break the forward tc though. You have a set of mm + a shipment to defend it, tc fire, 6500 hp. Pretty sure it's almost impossible to destroy that tc in a colonial war, except maybe with a few civs like otto/azzy/russia.
Same in fortress, I don't think ports easily lose a tc, except vs a a fast falc push like vs france or spain
In fortress there should be timings to kill that forward TC, otherwise Ports are too strong. Perhaps it's now possible to hold it on EP in some match ups, but not all and hopefully not almost all. I agree that it should be holdable in colonial wars, unless we're talking about later timings by civs like Japan or Brit.
Whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

58
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired ESOC staff
 
Posts: 4439
  • Link to post
  • Quote

06 Aug 2016, 14:54

zoom wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:Ports age up with a very weak (13 to 14 vill) eco, which means any strategy that pursues early map control is going to be unrealistic against a civ with a reasonable timing before 10 minutes. I've tried to play Ports that way on RE patch, after all it's the only way to play them on those maps, but it just doesn't work. If Ports were able to get 3 TCs spread out across the map AND enough units to defend them from early timings, they would be OP. In order to make this a realistic strategy without making Ports OP, we would have to give them a 3 vill shipment and apply some major nerfs across the board to make sure they don't rek everything. This may be the best course of action if we want Ports to be as interesting as their design allows them to be, but it's not exactly in line with our philosophy plus it's too much work to test properly.
My point is it's easy to say Ports should be a civ that focuses on map control with their free TCs, but considering those same TCs are also booming machines it's just not possible to balance the civ around that unless we were to redesign them in a big way.

Some of the complaints about the 80f vill change are valid, but I still think its pros far outweigh its cons and am personally of the opinion that it's one of the best changes we made. Whether it made Ports too strong remains to be seen, but it can be easily tweaked in that case.
While it is unquestionable that Portuguese, because of its inherent weakness, is underpowered on the average (land) RE-map, it is highly questionable on the average ESOC-map. Although your post implies otherwise, I'm sure you're perfectly aware that on the average ESOC-map the conditions are completely different. Therefore, it's disappointing that you attempt to justify the need for such a buff by clinging on to and applying the same assumption of irrelevant RE-centric logic that misguidedly prompted making the change in the first place, which is quite telling itself.
If you think that's what I'm doing you misinterpreted me which let's face it is probably my fault. The only reason I brought up RE patch is because the playstyle Ports are forced into there was relevant to the point I was making, which is that Ports shouldn't or even can't (with their current design) be good enough to make forward TCs and hold them consistently. The vill cost change is not at all in the picture here, I was trying to explain why according to Ports' design they can't be balanced around a playstyle where they take early map control. Now of course Ports need resources and their TCs need to be spread out accordingly, but that's not the same thing as placing them aggressively. As always, reading the rest of your post, it seems like there is actually not a lot we disagree about.

Considering the above, I find it absolutely ridiculous that you would use that very same weakness as an argument for such a change, when it's an obvious argument against it – the civilization should find map-control challenging for balance & design purposes alike, and map changes have already diminished this severely (which is necessary for achieving reasonable balance and therefore desirable). Amazingly enough, without realizing it, you even explained it yourself: "If Ports were able to get 3 TCs spread out across the map AND enough units to defend them from early timings, they would be OP." Indeed, this describes my entire point: Portuguese should have its strength naturally limited by its corresponding weakness, unless changing this is absolutely necessary .
Indeed, this was actually also my point. Map control shouldn't come easily to Ports, they should need to make some concessions on that front in order to hold timings. If they don't need to do that any more, that means we overbuffed them.

Its pros may very well outweigh its cons. Again – this has nothing to do with the argument; the argument is that the change is, in several ways, inferior to its alternative(s) and that choosing it regardless of this is a mistake, however uncomfortable admitting that might be.

Please accept and acknowledge that the change was made on a fundamentally flawed logical basis, and that it, without any justification, negates the doubly desirable weakness of the civilization even further than map changes.
This is all highly subjective. For one I don't see the fundamentally flawed logic the change is based on, and I also don't think the change was at all a mistake. Perhaps it should've been 90f, sure, but I still absolutely agree with the design of the change. The main reason why we went for it is that it doesn't change how Ports play, it doesn't force them into a certain style. It just made them a little better at everything. As you know we always aim to change the strength of the civ without changing the civ, if at all possible. You may not agree with this philosophy but that doesn't make it wrong.
Whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

58
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
 
Posts: 4157
ESO: Garja
  • Link to post
  • Quote

06 Aug 2016, 15:43

It's not a philosophycal point of view, but rather a design flaw.
User avatar
Netherlands Jerom
ESOC Media Team
 
Posts: 11224
ESO: Jerom_
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Link to post
  • Quote

07 Aug 2016, 01:42

The map control argument is bullshit given that we are talking about differences significantly smaller than the difference between a good and bad mapspawn.

"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

Forum Info

Return to “ESOC Civilizations Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest