[TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 2059
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: Lübeck

[TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by Lukas_L99 »

I'm creating this topic so people can discuss about the current balance of the treaty patch and post suggestions about what to possibly change.

Right now I think the majority of civs are fine, but I'd like to re-balance the following civs:

-Aztecs: They have become a pretty boring and spammy civ right now, units are trained so quickly that you barely need any hotkeys to play them well. My idea would be to revert the train time changes to the RE ones, give 1k coin back and probably remove the heavy inf tag from the explorer(too strong with the cover mode bug?). Oh, and get rid of that ridiculous jaguar knight change.

-Chinese: They're also kinda boring to play, I just don't like the standard army being chu ko nu/keshike, once they're out of steam there's almost no way of coming back, haven't really tried the new culvs from consulate but idk... My idea is giving them cows back and reverting the standard army back to steppe rider/chu ko nu.

-Iros: Idk what to do with them, but I personally don't like them right now. I'd just revert them to RE but then they'd be too bad out of nats, not many ideas to be honest.

-Sioux: Delete this civ imo, explorer running around and raping any artillery is just lame. Nerfing them would make them too bad probably, idk.

-Generally: Remove that dumb build limit of the infinite artillery cards, if you let your opponent mass that many it's your own fault.
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 2059
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: Lübeck

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by Lukas_L99 »

paddy_jai wrote:
Lukas_L99 wrote:
Chu ko nu didn't get nerfed, they also have 15 damage on RE (shooting 3 arrows). Don't forget that ckn have x3 vs heavy infantry and light cav, maces only x2,5 vs heavy inf and x2 vs light cav.

Edit: That topic is getting kinda off-topic now, I'm gonna create a new one where we can continue this discussion.


CKN hp is nerfed from 90 to 85. and the *3 vs ranged cav is dropped so they are a normal skirm type unit with short range and high cost (128f?) considering china cant make food fast anymore


Did the HP get nerfed? Then I forgot about that. Still doesn't really change the fact that chu ko nu themselves don't need a change in my opinion, especially if we do the changes I suggested.
User avatar
China paddy_jai
Skirmisher
Posts: 106
Joined: Mar 10, 2016

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by paddy_jai »

Lukas_L99 wrote:I'm creating this topic so people can discuss about the current balance of the treaty patch and post suggestions about what to possibly change.

-Chinese: They're also kinda boring to play, I just don't like the standard army being chu ko nu/keshike, once they're out of steam there's almost no way of coming back, haven't really tried the new culvs from consulate but idk... My idea is giving them cows back and reverting the standard army back to steppe rider/chu ko nu.


i think it's a good option. Since china's eco is pretty bad atm, they cant gether coin faster enough to maintain expensive iron flail (patch changed iron flail in ckn+ iron flail army to coin, so it's expensive)

however adding cow back will nerf the china gether wood ability or artilary combat, depending on which cards we would abandon in deck. so that it wont be a very big buff for china imo

Adding cow back probably will lead to a 2500 china at 40 min or 4k+ china at 55, will it still be a bit high?
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by Gichtenlord »

Revert outpost limit to 7 and just nerf the extra outpost card slightly.
r]
User avatar
Sweden martinspjuth
Dragoon
Posts: 245
Joined: Sep 18, 2015
ESO: martinspjuth

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by martinspjuth »

What i really want for the next update is for vills to stop moving on plants/mills (with gather rates adjusted accordingly) and the wheel on the mill to stop spinning. _NiceKING_ you said it wasn't hard to fix. Why isn't this implemented yet? It could help with the annoying lagg issue seen in many treaty games.
_NiceKING_ wrote:
charlemagen wrote:Yeah this has been on the list of changes from the get go, we didn't know how to do it until now! Thanks musketeer925. We also want to make mill turbines not spin.

Who is We? it was never hard to do it :santa:


Gichtenlord wrote:Revert outpost limit to 7 and just nerf the extra outpost card slightly.

Reducing the outpost build limit was one of the healthier changes overall in the last update, don't revert that. Why would you even want to?
User avatar
China paddy_jai
Skirmisher
Posts: 106
Joined: Mar 10, 2016

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by paddy_jai »

martinspjuth wrote:What i really want for the next update is for vills to stop moving on plants/mills (with gather rates adjusted accordingly) and the wheel on the mill to stop spinning.


Rice paddies for Euro style? maybe a building mod?
Germany supernapoleon
Lancer
Posts: 655
Joined: Sep 9, 2015
ESO: Supernapoleon
Location: Munich

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by supernapoleon »

Lukas_L99 wrote:
-Aztecs: They have become a pretty boring and spammy civ right now, units are trained so quickly that you barely need any hotkeys to play them well. My idea would be to revert the train time changes to the RE ones, give 1k coin back and probably remove the heavy inf tag from the explorer(too strong with the cover mode bug?). Oh, and get rid of that ridiculous jaguar knight change.

Imo faster training on the treaty patch for aztecs is fine. Otherwise they cannot maintain their army. The 1k gold made them almost a top tier, so decreasing it is fine for me. Not sure about the bug (I barly play them). Jaguar knight are pretty strong but als expensive so I do not see any problem here.

Lukas_L99 wrote:-Chinese: They're also kinda boring to play, I just don't like the standard army being chu ko nu/keshike, once they're out of steam there's almost no way of coming back, haven't really tried the new culvs from consulate but idk... My idea is giving them cows back and reverting the standard army back to steppe rider/chu ko nu.

When I play them I use Old Han until I ran out of wood. I agree that keshiks are not the best unit. However steppe rider are not great as well. Giving them cow coom back would make them a bit too strong. They already have one of the strongest ecos during fight.

Lukas_L99 wrote:-Iros: Idk what to do with them, but I personally don't like them right now. I'd just revert them to RE but then they'd be too bad out of nats, not many ideas to be honest.

RE made them too strong in nats with op cow/furtrade eco and weak out of nats. Now they are a bit weaker in nats and a bit stronger out of nats. So the change gives more possiblities to play them and therefore I agree with the changes.

Lukas_L99 wrote:-Sioux: Delete this civ imo, explorer running around and raping any artillery is just lame. Nerfing them would make them too bad probably, idk.

Yeah, the explorer is kind of annoying but deleting a whole civ feels not good. You would loose many possibilities.


Lukas_L99 wrote:-Generally: Remove that dumb build limit of the infinite artillery cards, if you let your opponent mass that many it's your own fault.

I like this change because it balance the game more. The disadvantages of civs that can not sent infinitive op canons is decreased.
"I'M SOOOOOO GOOD AT THE GAME"
Hazza wrote: "I mad u win cos u get carried all game and have to lame every game"
Image
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 2059
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: Lübeck

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by Lukas_L99 »

supernapoleon wrote:
Lukas_L99 wrote:
-Aztecs: They have become a pretty boring and spammy civ right now, units are trained so quickly that you barely need any hotkeys to play them well. My idea would be to revert the train time changes to the RE ones, give 1k coin back and probably remove the heavy inf tag from the explorer(too strong with the cover mode bug?). Oh, and get rid of that ridiculous jaguar knight change.

Imo faster training on the treaty patch for aztecs is fine. Otherwise they cannot maintain their army. The 1k gold made them almost a top tier, so decreasing it is fine for me. Not sure about the bug (I barly play them). Jaguar knight are pretty strong but als expensive so I do not see any problem here.

Of course they can maintain their army, you just need some hotkeys, that's all. Right now they're a civ every noob can play since everything's training so quickly.

Lukas_L99 wrote:-Chinese: They're also kinda boring to play, I just don't like the standard army being chu ko nu/keshike, once they're out of steam there's almost no way of coming back, haven't really tried the new culvs from consulate but idk... My idea is giving them cows back and reverting the standard army back to steppe rider/chu ko nu.

When I play them I use Old Han until I ran out of wood. I agree that keshiks are not the best unit. However steppe rider are not great as well. Giving them cow coom back would make them a bit too strong. They already have one of the strongest ecos during fight.

Old han only is just bad and it's not about keshiks being good or bad, just about the general design of chinese military where ckn/steppe is a little more useful imo. Also their eco is average in late game.

Lukas_L99 wrote:-Iros: Idk what to do with them, but I personally don't like them right now. I'd just revert them to RE but then they'd be too bad out of nats, not many ideas to be honest.

RE made them too strong in nats with op cow/furtrade eco and weak out of nats. Now they are a bit weaker in nats and a bit stronger out of nats. So the change gives more possiblities to play them and therefore I agree with the changes.

I wonder why no one is playing them, I just don't like their state right now.

Lukas_L99 wrote:-Sioux: Delete this civ imo, explorer running around and raping any artillery is just lame. Nerfing them would make them too bad probably, idk.

Yeah, the explorer is kind of annoying but deleting a whole civ feels not good. You would loose many possibilities.

Obviously the deleting part was a joke.

Lukas_L99 wrote:-Generally: Remove that dumb build limit of the infinite artillery cards, if you let your opponent mass that many it's your own fault.

I like this change because it balance the game more. The disadvantages of civs that can not sent infinitive op canons is decreased.

That's already done with the coin cost, all other infinite unit shipments are for free.
User avatar
China paddy_jai
Skirmisher
Posts: 106
Joined: Mar 10, 2016

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by paddy_jai »

supernapoleon wrote:
Lukas_L99 wrote:


Giving them cow coom back would make them a bit too strong. They already have one of the strongest ecos during fight.


i dont think the amount of rss a civ can gether doesn't represent how a civ's eco is, there is also other factors, like unit quality, whether there is unit cost discount or not (japan/ott) and the rss main army cost, (food/gold/wood)

on patch, china main army is ckn+iron flail, which costs a lot coin, but china cant gether coin fast. and keshek also costs coin, these important but coi heavy units are big nerf to china's eco. there is another example, casador, musk, huss mainly cost food for port, so even their total cost of rss are the same as other type units, (skirm which is coin heavy), but port still has stronger eco over spain, because their eco match their main units. In RE, china main army is old han or standard army, depending on wood, these 2 armies are all food heavy, standard army costs only 190 coin. Plus china op food gether rate, then china has a op eco. but on patch, their eco doesnt match armies, china need put a lot vill on coin, to maintain coin level.

Imo, china either need a buff on coin, or switch their army composition and cost composition so that china eco can sustain longer, give cow back to china is my goal! I am so sad such big country has so poor eco, even less than india eco, this is a joke :(
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by Gichtenlord »

martinspjuth wrote:What i really want for the next update is for vills to stop moving on plants/mills (with gather rates adjusted accordingly) and the wheel on the mill to stop spinning. _NiceKING_ you said it wasn't hard to fix. Why isn't this implemented yet? It could help with the annoying lagg issue seen in many treaty games.

The problem with vills stop moving on mills and plants is that you actually have to adjust the gather rate numbers. That already needs some time of testing, since you have to do several attempts of booms to see if it is as accurate as the original booms.
Also, this change may actually buff nilla civs after 40, since the amount of idle time of vills decreases when the fight starts.
If you find a considerable amount of good players who are willing to do it. Sure, go on and the team is willing to implement it.


martinspjuth wrote:Reducing the outpost build limit was one of the healthier changes overall in the last update, don't revert that. Why would you even want to?

Ofc, you see the change as something positive, since you were the one suggesting it in the end first place.
But whats the point of the nerf? Is there are a situation in which 7 towers are op or lame? In my opinion, there is never such a situation. If you arent able to keep yours opponent tower number low, then it is your fault and not towers fault/design itself. Almost all civs have mortars and can easily deal with towers without even risking anything. If you are not able to produce and protect 1-2 morts, then you dont deserve to beat a "camper". Even with civ like aztecs it's so easy to keep the tower count low. You just focus the outposts during construction and then switch back to the already built outposts.
In the end, this nerf is simplifying the game and removing one of the few mechanical interactions there already is for treaty between 2 players. It's like complaining that your opponent is able to build as many tps as he wants. Sure, if you dont even try to put any effort in denying his tradeposts, then dont complain when he gets a stronger economy and you lose because of it.
r]
User avatar
Great Britain britishmusketeer
Howdah
Posts: 1845
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by britishmusketeer »

Gichtenlord wrote:The problem with vills stop moving on mills and plants is that you actually have to adjust the gather rate numbers. That already needs some time of testing, since you have to do several attempts of booms to see if it is as accurate as the original booms.

I'm pretty sure mills/plants gather at the same rate as the asain rice paddys so 0.5 f/s and 0.33 c/s
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by Gichtenlord »

britishmusketeer wrote:
Gichtenlord wrote:The problem with vills stop moving on mills and plants is that you actually have to adjust the gather rate numbers. That already needs some time of testing, since you have to do several attempts of booms to see if it is as accurate as the original booms.

I'm pretty sure mills/plants gather at the same rate as the asain rice paddys so 0.5 f/s and 0.33 c/s

Do you mean with the included idle/walking time of villagers?
r]
User avatar
Great Britain britishmusketeer
Howdah
Posts: 1845
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by britishmusketeer »

Gichtenlord wrote:
britishmusketeer wrote:
Gichtenlord wrote:The problem with vills stop moving on mills and plants is that you actually have to adjust the gather rate numbers. That already needs some time of testing, since you have to do several attempts of booms to see if it is as accurate as the original booms.

I'm pretty sure mills/plants gather at the same rate as the asain rice paddys so 0.5 f/s and 0.33 c/s

Do you mean with the included idle/walking time of villagers?

yea
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by Gichtenlord »

Hopefully, it is that simple, but Im sure that developers based these numbers on offline games. If I compared the times of how often vills are idle in offline and online games, there would be quite a big difference.
User avatar
United States of America dicktator_
Howdah
EWT
Posts: 1565
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
ESO: Conquerer999

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by dicktator_ »

Lukas_L99 wrote:I'm creating this topic so people can discuss about the current balance of the treaty patch and post suggestions about what to possibly change.

Right now I think the majority of civs are fine, but I'd like to re-balance the following civs:

-Aztecs: They have become a pretty boring and spammy civ right now, units are trained so quickly that you barely need any hotkeys to play them well. My idea would be to revert the train time changes to the RE ones, give 1k coin back and probably remove the heavy inf tag from the explorer(too strong with the cover mode bug?). Oh, and get rid of that ridiculous jaguar knight change.

I had the idea of making the inca tech only boost ERK and Coyote by 15%, so that they train like RE on Andes but faster off Andes. IDK why that wasn't implemented as no1 seemed to have a problem with it. Get rid of jpk change I agree. The Aztec explorer would probably be too strong without HI tag, I think it's fine just having it training cougars in the back.

-Chinese: They're also kinda boring to play, I just don't like the standard army being chu ko nu/keshike, once they're out of steam there's almost no way of coming back, haven't really tried the new culvs from consulate but idk... My idea is giving them cows back and reverting the standard army back to steppe rider/chu ko nu.

10 vill overpop and cowing imo. These things made the civ unique to play on RE and just removing them was probably bad form. The max pop would still be 210, and CKN can also be nerfed (although apparently they are already nerfed, which I didn't realize) to compensate. Can also revert hand mortar buffs and any other buffs (IDK if Keshiks were buffed or not) with this change.

-Iros: Idk what to do with them, but I personally don't like them right now. I'd just revert them to RE but then they'd be too bad out of nats, not many ideas to be honest.

Need people to play them more. They seemed kind of weak when I played them but I got doubled every time I played them. If they end up being too weak I'd say revert the vill overpop change.

-Sioux: Delete this civ imo, explorer running around and raping any artillery is just lame. Nerfing them would make them too bad probably, idk.

WC HP back to 3k and work from there. Like Iro, people need to play as and vs them more.

-Generally: Remove that dumb build limit of the infinite artillery cards, if you let your opponent mass that many it's your own fault.

Yes


Gichtenlord wrote:Ofc, you see the change as something positive, since you were the one suggesting it in the end first place.
But whats the point of the nerf? Is there are a situation in which 7 towers are op or lame? In my opinion, there is never such a situation. If you arent able to keep yours opponent tower number low, then it is your fault and not towers fault/design itself. Almost all civs have mortars and can easily deal with towers without even risking anything. If you are not able to produce and protect 1-2 morts, then you dont deserve to beat a "camper". Even with civ like aztecs it's so easy to keep the tower count low. You just focus the outposts during construction and then switch back to the already built outposts.
In the end, this nerf is simplifying the game and removing one of the few mechanical interactions there already is for treaty between 2 players. It's like complaining that your opponent is able to build as many tps as he wants. Sure, if you dont even try to put any effort in denying his tradeposts, then dont complain when he gets a stronger economy and you lose because of it.

Agree, also if your opponent gets a good tower setup that you can't break you can just jump.

For France I think it'd be cool to revert the church card, maybe nerf it somehow so that it's only 5% or leave it at 10% but make it so that it only effects mills (also reduce it's effect on building costs if this is done), and remove the furtrade boost to mills to make up for it. Building your base ASAP so that you can get the Napoleonic code tech made the France boom slightly more interesting, so completely changing the church card and making it useless instead of just nerfing it was probably also bad form.
steniothejonjoe wrote:I can micro better than 99% of the player base and that's 100% objective
:mds:
User avatar
China paddy_jai
Skirmisher
Posts: 106
Joined: Mar 10, 2016

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by paddy_jai »

How about Japan on patch?

They can overpop their op army and has decent eco

Is Japan to op?
User avatar
Sweden martinspjuth
Dragoon
Posts: 245
Joined: Sep 18, 2015
ESO: martinspjuth

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by martinspjuth »

Gichtenlord wrote:The problem with vills stop moving on mills and plants is that you actually have to adjust the gather rate numbers. That already needs some time of testing, since you have to do several attempts of booms to see if it is as accurate as the original booms.
Also, this change may actually buff nilla civs after 40, since the amount of idle time of vills decreases when the fight starts.
If you find a considerable amount of good players who are willing to do it. Sure, go on and the team is willing to implement it.

Stopping the wheel from rotating on mills won't affect any gather rates. And sure it might take some testing before you know exactly what the gather rates should be. But why not start doing it? If we can get this to work properly and it can reduce the lagg found in many treaty games it could be a very nice change.

Gichtenlord wrote:Ofc, you see the change as something positive, since you were the one suggesting it in the end first place.
But whats the point of the nerf? Is there are a situation in which 7 towers are op or lame? In my opinion, there is never such a situation. If you arent able to keep yours opponent tower number low, then it is your fault and not towers fault/design itself. Almost all civs have mortars and can easily deal with towers without even risking anything. If you are not able to produce and protect 1-2 morts, then you dont deserve to beat a "camper". Even with civ like aztecs it's so easy to keep the tower count low. You just focus the outposts during construction and then switch back to the already built outposts.
In the end, this nerf is simplifying the game and removing one of the few mechanical interactions there already is for treaty between 2 players. It's like complaining that your opponent is able to build as many tps as he wants. Sure, if you dont even try to put any effort in denying his tradeposts, then dont complain when he gets a stronger economy and you lose because of it.

Ye there are situations in which 7 towers are too strong. German and Britt with towers + heavy cannons/rockets is a way too strong camp. Britt/german can just push for as long as they like, if they fail they can just fall back and camp and you can't break it unless you are a much better player. If you want to give Port/Spain/Dutch/Otto back 7 towers idc (might even be right as u argued for). I'm not even sure why you took it away in the first place, since my suggestion of reduced tower limit only concerned Britt and Ger.

dicktator_ wrote:Agree, also if your opponent gets a good tower setup that you can't break you can just jump.

Say that next time you play Spain.

dicktator_ wrote:I had the idea of making the inca tech only boost ERK and Coyote by 15%, so that they train like RE on Andes but faster off Andes.

This would be good.
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 2059
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: Lübeck

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by Lukas_L99 »

dicktator_ wrote:
I had the idea of making the inca tech only boost ERK and Coyote by 15%, so that they train like RE on Andes but faster off Andes. IDK why that wasn't implemented as no1 seemed to have a problem with it. Get rid of jpk change I agree. The Aztec explorer would probably be too strong without HI tag, I think it's fine just having it training cougars in the back.


10 vill overpop and cowing imo. These things made the civ unique to play on RE and just removing them was probably bad form. The max pop would still be 210, and CKN can also be nerfed (although apparently they are already nerfed, which I didn't realize) to compensate. Can also revert hand mortar buffs and any other buffs (IDK if Keshiks were buffed or not) with this change.



True, I forgot about that inca tech change, I think that's a good idea.

I have a feeling that 10 vill overpop AND cowing would be too strong, Imo just add cowing first and see from there how it plays out. Pretty sure keshiks weren't changed, Imo leave chinese units as they are right now (except for RE banner armies).

dicktator_ wrote:For France I think it'd be cool to revert the church card, maybe nerf it somehow so that it's only 5% or leave it at 10% but make it so that it only effects mills (also reduce it's effect on building costs if this is done), and remove the furtrade boost to mills to make up for it. Building your base ASAP so that you can get the Napoleonic code tech made the France boom slightly more interesting, so completely changing the church card and making it useless instead of just nerfing it was probably also bad form.


That's a really good idea.

paddy_jai wrote:How about Japan on patch?

They can overpop their op army and has decent eco

Is Japan to op?


Japan is really good but still have troubles vs good cannon usage since flaming arrows have 2 less range than culvs.

Regarding the tower change: I'm not really sure, but I really feel like 4 towers aren't a lot at all... Even if I'm annoyed by a tower camper (especially if he's playing ports) I think 7 towers are alright.
User avatar
Switzerland sebnan12
Jaeger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Mongobillione
Location: Switzerland

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by sebnan12 »

i like the patch as it is now .. i think china might need a bit more eco indeed.. anyways u guys doing a great job as the tr patch has way more success than ep.. and btw @Lukas_L99 arent u in te tr patch team? cauz it says so
"Why are you trying to lecture me on my own language, no wonder you people shit in the open street."- Riotcoke

''man he's slow rolling him more than a fish on a royal flush'' - Garja

NEED MORE XP
User avatar
Switzerland sebnan12
Jaeger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Mongobillione
Location: Switzerland

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by sebnan12 »

martinspjuth wrote:What i really want for the next update is for vills to stop moving on plants/mills (with gather rates adjusted accordingly) and the wheel on the mill to stop spinning. _NiceKING_ you said it wasn't hard to fix. Why isn't this implemented yet? It could help with the annoying lagg issue seen in many treaty games.
_NiceKING_ wrote:
charlemagen wrote:Yeah this has been on the list of changes from the get go, we didn't know how to do it until now! Thanks musketeer925. We also want to make mill turbines not spin.

Who is We? it was never hard to do it :santa:


Gichtenlord wrote:Revert outpost limit to 7 and just nerf the extra outpost card slightly.

Reducing the outpost build limit was one of the healthier changes overall in the last update, don't revert that. Why would you even want to?

yes yes 100% yes
"Why are you trying to lecture me on my own language, no wonder you people shit in the open street."- Riotcoke

''man he's slow rolling him more than a fish on a royal flush'' - Garja

NEED MORE XP
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 2059
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: Lübeck

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by Lukas_L99 »

sebnan12 wrote:i like the patch as it is now .. i think china might need a bit more eco indeed.. anyways u guys doing a great job as the tr patch has way more success than ep.. and btw @Lukas_L99 arent u in te tr patch team? cauz it says so


I am, I just wanted to include the community with this thread, maybe they come up with ideas we wouldn't think of
User avatar
Switzerland sebnan12
Jaeger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Mongobillione
Location: Switzerland

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by sebnan12 »

Lukas_L99 wrote:
sebnan12 wrote:i like the patch as it is now .. i think china might need a bit more eco indeed.. anyways u guys doing a great job as the tr patch has way more success than ep.. and btw @Lukas_L99 arent u in te tr patch team? cauz it says so


I am, I just wanted to include the community with this thread, maybe they come up with ideas we wouldn't think of

ah k but well i think nearly all current top players are in the patch team (which is probly also the fact that the tr patch is played more than ep).. so if u guys wanna change something it nearly always turns out good :)
"Why are you trying to lecture me on my own language, no wonder you people shit in the open street."- Riotcoke

''man he's slow rolling him more than a fish on a royal flush'' - Garja

NEED MORE XP
Germany supernapoleon
Lancer
Posts: 655
Joined: Sep 9, 2015
ESO: Supernapoleon
Location: Munich

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by supernapoleon »

sebnan12 wrote:
Lukas_L99 wrote:
sebnan12 wrote:i like the patch as it is now .. i think china might need a bit more eco indeed.. anyways u guys doing a great job as the tr patch has way more success than ep.. and btw @Lukas_L99 arent u in te tr patch team? cauz it says so


I am, I just wanted to include the community with this thread, maybe they come up with ideas we wouldn't think of

ah k but well i think nearly all current top players are in the patch team (which is probly also the fact that the tr patch is played more than ep).. so if u guys wanna change something it nearly always turns out good :)

Floko not included, so not all top players :P
"I'M SOOOOOO GOOD AT THE GAME"
Hazza wrote: "I mad u win cos u get carried all game and have to lame every game"
Image
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sep 16, 2015
ESO: _NiceKING_
GameRanger ID: 9999999
Clan: Xbox

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by _NiceKING_ »

Lukas_L99 wrote:Pretty sure keshiks weren't changed

Actually they were buffed:
"Keshik now have 130HP (from 110), 12 damage (from 8), and cost changed to 115 gold (from 115 food)"
User avatar
Switzerland sebnan12
Jaeger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Mongobillione
Location: Switzerland

Re: [TR Patch] Thoughts about current balance/Suggestions

Post by sebnan12 »

_NiceKING_ wrote:
Lukas_L99 wrote:Pretty sure keshiks weren't changed

Actually they were buffed:
"Keshik now have 130HP (from 110), 12 damage (from 8), and cost changed to 115 gold (from 115 food)"

wow keshiks are horrible
"Why are you trying to lecture me on my own language, no wonder you people shit in the open street."- Riotcoke

''man he's slow rolling him more than a fish on a royal flush'' - Garja

NEED MORE XP

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV