ESOCommunity

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.

It's not a philosophycal point of view, but rather a design flaw.

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

The map control argument makes sense to me. Almost every boomy civ has their boom potential as an advantage. Their big economy and thus a large resource intake means that they use their resource up faster than other civs, which in turn means they need to get map control in order to continue gathering resources. Since the Portuguese have cheaper villagers (because food problem too big otherwise) and 3 tcs they can boom quite heavily and could reach 99 villagers rather quickly. But people who have their boom as their number one priority should have map control as their number one concern to keep having resources to gather.

Good and bad map spawn aside, every boomy civ should have map control as their priority and the other civs should have efficient trades (due to efficient units) and/or a contain as their priority. If the boomy civs focuses too much on their boom the enemy civ can and will contain them and starve them out, simple as that.

Yes but the 80f villagers change nothing about that realistically, which is what the discussion is about.

I think that Portuguese have been a huge success story, and have grown to be one of my favorite civs. I think that all that needs to be done with them is a buff of their infantry, as well furthered nerfs to their goons. I think that infantry HP should be moved to age 2, Attack to age 3, and keep Combat in age 4. Also, I think that genitours should be changed to what it was in AS FP 1.2, +2 range and 10% combat.

Portuguese are extremely balanced IMO, already. I think that Ports booming abilities are greatly exaggerated, and 80 food vills really only start to become a problem in team games. Ports are not an inherently boomy civ IMO, because their eco in a standard semi-ff is roughly equal to France and Germany's. The big problem is that Ports can boom if given enough time, and, like Japan, can get out of control. A lot of people just dont play aggressively enough against them to compensate. I think that for now, besides some of the changes I proposed earlier, Ports should not be touched, and we should let new meta evolve around them, and wait for players to figure out how to beat them.

Darwin_ wrote:I think that Portuguese have been a huge success story, and have grown to be one of my favorite civs. I think that all that needs to be done with them is a buff of their infantry, as well furthered nerfs to their goons. I think that infantry HP should be moved to age 2, Attack to age 3, and keep Combat in age 4. Also, I think that genitours should be changed to what it was in AS FP 1.2, +2 range and 10% combat.

Portuguese are extremely balanced IMO, already. I think that Ports booming abilities are greatly exaggerated, and 80 food vills really only start to become a problem in team games. Ports are not an inherently boomy civ IMO, because their eco in a standard semi-ff is roughly equal to France and Germany's. The big problem is that Ports can boom if given enough time, and, like Japan, can get out of control. A lot of people just dont play aggressively enough against them to compensate. I think that for now, besides some of the changes I proposed earlier, Ports should not be touched, and we should let new meta evolve around them, and wait for players to figure out how to beat them.

Bad idea, that way we will have another France/Dutch clone. We don't need that......

I think moving those two cards to previous ages would be great, although it's not essential for balance and I would switch HP and attack.

I don't care for nerfing Genitours in such a way.

Atomiswave wrote:

Darwin_ wrote:I think that Portuguese have been a huge success story, and have grown to be one of my favorite civs. I think that all that needs to be done with them is a buff of their infantry, as well furthered nerfs to their goons. I think that infantry HP should be moved to age 2, Attack to age 3, and keep Combat in age 4. Also, I think that genitours should be changed to what it was in AS FP 1.2, +2 range and 10% combat.

Portuguese are extremely balanced IMO, already. I think that Ports booming abilities are greatly exaggerated, and 80 food vills really only start to become a problem in team games. Ports are not an inherently boomy civ IMO, because their eco in a standard semi-ff is roughly equal to France and Germany's. The big problem is that Ports can boom if given enough time, and, like Japan, can get out of control. A lot of people just dont play aggressively enough against them to compensate. I think that for now, besides some of the changes I proposed earlier, Ports should not be touched, and we should let new meta evolve around them, and wait for players to figure out how to beat them.

Bad idea, that way we will have another France/Dutch clone. We don't need that......

I do know that on AS fp 1.2, and FP 1.3 for mac esspecially, portugeuse played out much like france and brits, but that was really only due to both cards being in age 2, and free hunting dogs, two much more early-game focused bonuses. But since on this patch we went with 80 food vills, as well as me proposing the movement of only hp (which is much less useful than attack in age 2) to age 2, and keeping combat in age 4, instead of moving it to age 3, I think that port's early game would not be buffed significantly. In addition to the bonuses not being as early-game focused, the meta today would probably keep ports from having a solely colonial agenda, even though it is already fairly strong.

What would you do to buff their age 3 infantry? Stats buff to cass?

Age 4 combat cards seems terrible. But you know there are too many logically not understandable cards in this game.
Moving it dont make a huge balance benefit even if its a good idea to change. Thats why they basicly dont care about that. Plus once u start making totally useless cards a little more useful you give yourself a huge work. There are so many of those cards.
As a player i would love to see "make totally useless card a bit useful project" but there should be so many changes then. People fear to change cause they think others will quit cause of those. Plus Goodspeed is probably lazy to edit a very long balance notes and Garja doesnt want to help him.

Goodspeed wrote:

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.

Undeniably, the buff was made in large part to alleviate the need for food. Apparently to us both, this logic is misguided.

zoom wrote:Undeniably, the buff was made in large part to alleviate the need for food. Apparently to us both, this logic is misguided.

No, as I said the main advantage of the change to me is that it doesn't change the civ, just its strength. The fact that it makes food last slightly longer is a bonus, but not at all the main reason the change was made. I don't see how that is undeniable since I denied it both in the post you quoted but so predictably didn't reply to, and in this post.
It's not at all significant either, you are only winning half a deer with every 10 vills made. The obviously much more significant part is that you are winning 200 food with every 10 vills made. If we wanted to make the hunts last longer we might have changed cass cost to be more gold-heavy or something.

How would cass cost change make food last longer??? Theyre a trash unit that nobody makes so you can make them cost pure coin and hunts still run out same rate cuz ppl are making huss dragoon lol

Lol it's just the first thing that came to mind calm down.

I motion to remove highspeed as ep director and install aizmak!

In any case, you seldom make 100 units of 1 type before you switch to mills, but you usuall do go up to 70 vils. So its not true that lowering unit cost would save more natiral food than lowering vill cost.

In any case its not really just the 100f that makes port good, its synergy with the maps and other nerfs on civs that beat them before that make them come out on top. Ports was already really strong on re if you played esoc maps.

Play ep ports on re maps vs re civs, and they would be almost just as trash as ports was considered before. That said i do agree with garja that the vil ccost change is unnecessary and inconsistent.

I think 100f vill port is fine on ep, with perhaps a small tweak to cassa and inf ups

Darwin_ wrote:

Atomiswave wrote:

Darwin_ wrote:I think that Portuguese have been a huge success story, and have grown to be one of my favorite civs. I think that all that needs to be done with them is a buff of their infantry, as well furthered nerfs to their goons. I think that infantry HP should be moved to age 2, Attack to age 3, and keep Combat in age 4. Also, I think that genitours should be changed to what it was in AS FP 1.2, +2 range and 10% combat.

Portuguese are extremely balanced IMO, already. I think that Ports booming abilities are greatly exaggerated, and 80 food vills really only start to become a problem in team games. Ports are not an inherently boomy civ IMO, because their eco in a standard semi-ff is roughly equal to France and Germany's. The big problem is that Ports can boom if given enough time, and, like Japan, can get out of control. A lot of people just dont play aggressively enough against them to compensate. I think that for now, besides some of the changes I proposed earlier, Ports should not be touched, and we should let new meta evolve around them, and wait for players to figure out how to beat them.

Bad idea, that way we will have another France/Dutch clone. We don't need that......

I do know that on AS fp 1.2, and FP 1.3 for mac esspecially, portugeuse played out much like france and brits, but that was really only due to both cards being in age 2, and free hunting dogs, two much more early-game focused bonuses. But since on this patch we went with 80 food vills, as well as me proposing the movement of only hp (which is much less useful than attack in age 2) to age 2, and keeping combat in age 4, instead of moving it to age 3, I think that port's early game would not be buffed significantly. In addition to the bonuses not being as early-game focused, the meta today would probably keep ports from having a solely colonial agenda, even though it is already fairly strong.

What would you do to buff their age 3 infantry? Stats buff to cass?

Yes, I would prefer stat buff to cassas, than messing with cards.

Goodspeed wrote:

zoom wrote:Undeniably, the buff was made in large part to alleviate the need for food. Apparently to us both, this logic is misguided.

No, as I said the main advantage of the change to me is that it doesn't change the civ, just its strength. The fact that it makes food last slightly longer is a bonus, but not at all the main reason the change was made. I don't see how that is undeniable since I denied it both in the post you quoted but so predictably didn't reply to, and in this post.
It's not at all significant either, you are only winning half a deer with every 10 vills made. The obviously much more significant part is that you are winning 200 food with every 10 vills made. If we wanted to make the hunts last longer we might have changed cass cost to be more gold-heavy or something.

You're right in that it isn't technically undeniable. Whether it only changes the civilization's strength is debatable but half-truism at best. The point is, if that were in fact the goal, another change would have been chosen. To me, this change is arbitrary and poor show. It's not a big deal, but if Portuguese needs a nerf I would rather see it substituted.

What post did I so predictably fail in replying to now?

Just buff cassadores a bit (either make them a bit cheaper or slightly buff their stats) and/or put gunpowder combat in age 3 (not sure about gunpowder attack and hp, I think putting it in colo would be OP and would make ports too much like brits, maybe put them in age 3 as well), and maybe also buff the 2 organs shipments (3 organs ? Idk, would still lose to falcs I guess, but might be too good vs non falc civs). And ofc revert the 80f change instead.

Ports seem in a pretty good spot now, it just seems that outside of team very few people are willing to play them in 1v1. We'll see how it goes higher up in the tournament but from what I've seen thus far they seem quite unpopular for some reason.

it's probably because of people being a bit unfamiliar with them plus they require some macro skills to sustain production from 5 buildings or even more, their strength is a separate thing from what I've seen, given enough time, they can boom easily and steamroll, just like Dutch. Additionally, there are high-res maps...

Brit's do everything port do, in a better way, ez life, play brit's @Goodspeed

Goodspeed wrote:notification

yeah british naked ff/fi and atp sure

tedere12 wrote:yeah british naked ff/fi and atp sure

well who does naked ff with birt, id just rather vc boom then go 3rd/4th

Ports are probably top civ right now