Ports' vill cost — 90f

[pecelot]

Simple as that — I think a nice compromise would just be 90f. It may make them scale a bit worse later on, especially in team games, while they still remain strong with high-resource maps and ATP agenda. Vote!

[DaRkNiTe1698]

Same start crates of RE patch (with 100f included) but 90f villager cost

[forgrin]

90f please. Although it would make Ports, my fav civ, worse, I feel they've lost all their flavour on EP and are just so... boring (aka like France!). They'd be more interesting to play as a mid-tier civ tbh (not to mention less broken on ATP maps).

[Hazza54321]

100f +cass buff

[iNcog]

80f

When you're at a 50 villager economy you've saved 1000f basically, which isn't negligible but it's not THAT much either. 90f vills would be 500f saving for a 50 villager economy, which is basically one free bison when you get to 50 villagers.

The real question is whether or not ports are too strong. I somehow doubt that they are, so why nerf?

[iNcog]

by the way are you supposed to be allowed to post in this section of the forum?

[pecelot]

Ports are basically banned in team games, as far as I'm concerned, if you have any doubts about their strength. It wouldn't, however, affect their 1v1 performance that much, while at the same time I think it would improve the aforementioned team-game balance.

By the looks of things, it wasn't prohibited. Feel free to move the thread to an appropriate section if you think so.

[iNcog]

By the looks of things, it wasn't prohibited. Feel free to move the thread to an appropriate section if you think so.

Heh, I'm not a mod it is of no concern to me. x)

Ports are basically banned in team games, as far as I'm concerned, if you have any doubts about their strength. It wouldn't, however, affect their 1v1 performance that much, while at the same time I think it would improve the aforementioned team-game balance.

Ports have been historically strong in team games unless I'm mistaken, even with 100f villagers. Due to the design of the civ it's just strong in team. Team balance shouldn't be preponderant compared to 1v1 balance (nor should it be neglected), which is why I feel this is a moot point.

If they are the best civilization in 1v1, then perhaps a case could be made, though I personally still don't agree with the idea that a civilization should be nerfed every iteration. I would just leave it as is and instead focus on buffing the weakest civilizations.

860f over the course of 12-15 minutes (time it takes to get 50 vills, with a 7 villager start) is pretty much a free wood shipment, but only when you get to 50 villagers. The boom itself isn't that much faster or better, since you're still training the villagers at the same speed as before; you can get out more units or faster market upgrades for defense if the need arises.

I think it's a good buff and it's hardly over the top. People just need a scape-goat civ since they have an unwarranted obsession with nerfing the top civilization. I disagree with this sentiment.

[pecelot]

First of all, don't compare it to a shipment, since you just constantly, from the very beginning of the game, cheaper villagers. You don't have to sacrifice that much eco to produce settlers from multiple TCs, which really improves your economy. At the start you can be a bit back due to other civs' villager shipments, but once you surpass the difference, you get more and more of an advantage.
I'm not necessarily arguing it's a bad decision, though seeing the strength of the civilisation, feeling how smooth it is to boom nicely and judging by the opinions of almost plenty of good players (actually almost every team player), I think it's was quite a bit of exaggeration. Thus, I propose a compromise — 90f.
Compromise between team and 1v1s, referring here to your allegations. I'll repeat again, ESOC maps are enough of a buff to Portuguese anyway and it won't hurt them, whereas it could at least make them „more playable" in team games.

[Hazza54321]

theyre way too strong in team games atm. Probs top in 1v1 also, they, as well as ddutch, just feel like fake civs

[iNcog]

First of all, don't compare it to a shipment, since you just constantly, from the very beginning of the game, cheaper villagers. You don't have to sacrifice that much eco to produce settlers from multiple TCs, which really improves your economy. At the start you can be a bit back due to other civs' villager shipments, but once you surpass the difference, you get more and more of an advantage.
I'm not necessarily arguing it's a bad decision, though seeing the strength of the civilisation, feeling how smooth it is to boom nicely and judging by the opinions of almost plenty of good players (actually almost every team player), I think it's was quite a bit of exaggeration. Thus, I propose a compromise — 90f.
Compromise between team and 1v1s, referring here to your allegations. I'll repeat again, ESOC maps are enough of a buff to Portuguese anyway and it won't hurt them, whereas it could at least make them „more playable" in team games.

When you age up to colonial you've produced 7 villagers, which is 7x20 = 140f. It's a free food treasure. It's very good, but over the top? I don't know.



My allegations don't have much to do with it, balance is much rougher in team just because you can have so many different combinations. 1v1 is much closer, as well as the basis of most tournaments. Makes sense that 1v1 comes first, though again I never said team should be ignored.

[Darwin_]

90f is fine, but cass would still have to get some kind of buff. I would be more into them getting stronger cass, an extra wood crate and 100f vills. I tried them out on the Nilla patch where they have an extra wood crate and TP's are back TAD cost of 200w, and I really liked them. Of course, that was nilla and not TAD, but my opinion is still valid I think.

Maybe they could also automatically get one or two food crates with every age up or smth. With 100f vills they would still churn through hunts quite fast, even with ESOC maps, and I think they would need a way to get more food somehow. 100f vills means they would use about 1000 more food by 13 minutes which is like 3 animals, which doesnt seem like alot, but is like 4 free huss worth of resources, which is a lot more important. With a starting TP, they get near consectutive 1st, 2nd and 3rd shipments if they skip an age 1 card, and their whole shipment progression is sped up, giving them an extra shipment by about 12 minutes. That is worth roughly the same number of resources as the vill cost reduction, but it comes a bit later and weakens their Iron Curtain in team games. I think that running out of food could probably just be avoided by aggressive town center placement, but that is not in the meta for whatever reason.

100f would help out with team games, and with the appropriate buffs elsewhere, could be a usable solution for 1v1. 90f would be less OP in team, but would still let them play a bit more defensively than they should be able to. I think that they dont really need adjusting in actual power level in 1v1 once Germany, dutch and other civs are fixed, but do need tweaks to make them less strong in team, cause they are currently OP in 3v3 and one of the strongest in 2v2.

[Atomiswave]

I am all for 90f vills but ofc with 100f crate.

[zoom]

Should just substitute instead.

[pecelot]

When you age up to colonial you've produced 7 villagers, which is 7x20 = 140f. It's a free food treasure. It's very good, but over the top? I don't know.

My allegations don't have much to do with it, balance is much rougher in team just because you can have so many different combinations. 1v1 is much closer, as well as the basis of most tournaments. Makes sense that 1v1 comes first, though again I never said team should be ignored.

Please, read my reply in the other thread about the Portuguese. Also, if you think of it, 140 food treasure in every game is a pretty big deal, right? Consider GP with one comanchero + 2 coyotes and remember how significant it could be. You can, for instance, just cut one vill and age up, let's say, 25 seconds sooner, which is a quite big deal, undeniably.
Thus, I don't suggest getting rid of the buff entirely — just adjusting it (compromise!).

[Gendarme]

I dislike the food discount exclusively for the fact that it is a big change. Not balance-wise, perhaps, but in the sense of donotfuckwiththedesignofthegameplease. Same goes with the Iroquois nerf: they can no longer abstain from building a longhouse with their starting travois on maps with normal starting crates, so the travois is more or less purposeless.

With that in mind, I vote for 100f, and hope the team can come up with a better way to buff the Portuguese.

[Diarouga]

Simple as that — I think a nice compromise would just be 90f. It may make them scale a bit worse later on, especially in team games, while they still remain strong with high-resource maps and ATP agenda. Vote!

Honestly, the issue with port isn't the 80f food, it's ATP. If you want them to be consistent, just remove ATP/schooners, then they'll be balanced on both TP and no TP maps.
If you nerf them too hard they'll be viable only on high TP maps, and if you don't, well they're op

[pecelot]

I dislike the food discount exclusively for the fact that it is a big change. Not balance-wise, perhaps, but in the sense of donotfuckwiththedesignofthegameplease.

It's not that much of a precedent, think Russ, French

[Gendarme]

Well, the Russians already have cheaper units - now the settlers are just a little more cheaper. Sure, it's not a small change, but it still makes sense (just like making CDBs cost 125f instead of 120f).

The French just start with one less food crate. Although the implications are "severe", it is still a small change - and for any non-competitive player, it's not even noticeable (crates have a random spawn anyway).

There is no justification other than "what the good players of 2016 think is balanced" to give the Portuguese a settler discount. Design-wise, it is absurd, I think.

[deleted_user]

How does making vills 10f cheaper detract from them design wise? What alternate change would you suggest otherwise?

[pecelot]

Well, the Russians already have cheaper units - now the settlers are just a little more cheaper. Sure, it's not a small change, but it still makes sense (just like making CDBs cost 125f instead of 120f).

The French just start with one less food crate.

What I meant was that these two civs were given discounts for their vills originally, by the game designers. Hence, it's certainly not something overly innovative in terms of AoE3-related ideas.
Hey, the Portuguese start with one less food crate, too!

[Gendarme]

Settlers are supposed to cost 100f. French settlers are justified to not cost 100f, because they are not settlers - they are extremely skilled wood runners. Russian settlers are justified to not cost 100f because the civilization bonus of Russia is that their units train in batches and therefore cost less (capitali... communism for the win(?)).

A change in the cost of settlers is rather big and noticeable (even the Russian 255f change, but not as much as this). Even a conscript is aware that settlers cost 100f. However, the nerf of the ranged resistance of the cassador from 60% to 50% is much more subtle and goes unnoticed by the majority of players.

I think the goal of the EP should be to make it playable for everyone, not just the competitive players who herd precisely every 12 seconds and manage to get the first pass of the trading post travois on Mongolia. A lot of people play this game because it is the game that they loved as a kid. I think we should try to improve the balance while changing the game as little as possible (perhaps "as subtly as possible" is a better way to put it).

I have no suggestion for the replacement of the buff of the settler cost, and although I could come up with one, there are others that could do this a lot better, so I'll not even try.

[pecelot]

Of course you're right with that, but you already have some valid exceptions, like Dutch coin or Indian wood costs — it's a pretty big difference in terms of VS. Obviously both civs have other unique features to compensate for it later on, but still, the rule is broken
What do you particularly suggest to make the game more playable for less-skilled players?

[Gendarme]

What do you particularly suggest to make the game more playable for less-skilled players?

Balance is not an issue for bad players. Bad players can learn one new mechanic and become considerably better than simply switching to an OP civilization and becoming slightly "better".

[pecelot]

I don't necessarily recognise an answer...
EP offers a lot for lower-ranked players IMO: great maps, anti-cheat measurements, valid bug fixes, some nice features like diplomacy etc. Balance can't really be based or destined to them, for the reasons I hope I'm not obliged to explain.