EP poll #7

[Hazza54321]

Also forget that the main reason jap was good on re was sustainable food

[Mitoe]

Why japan is trash tier? they arent that diferent from Re where they were a solid civ.

wall nerf yumi nerf fi nerf wut u want more

I'm just asking, i dont really play japs so no need to pretend i know better then others

tbf, yumi and fi nerf are only late game nerfs, in the early game, the only change is weaker walls. is that enough to bring a civ from "pretty good" to "useless trash" ?

Japan isn't solid on RE, either, in my opinion; although many of the maps are significantly better for them on RE. It helps when you have to leave your base for hunts extremely early, and then you have 3-4 less units because of all of the resources lost from walking, but normally this isn't even a problem on RE.

[Garja]

Japan is pretty damn solid on RE (like 5th top civ) although that definitely has to do with maps to quite some extent.
Thing is on EP lot of civs that do well vs Japs are nerfed: Iro, Otto, French, Germans. Other civs that do fine should also be nerfed: Brits, China, Aztecs (well, reworked more than necessarily nerfed).
Only real nerf Japan got is the yumi nerf and we're considering reverting it (shogunate is a totally legit nerf).

[momuuu]

Its badly time to start explicitly discriminating between tp and no tp. Also its just ridiculous to rate india this highly.

[spanky4ever]

Its badly time to start explicitly discriminating between tp and no tp. Also its just ridiculous to rate india this highly.

how can we trust a person who go spank all the time? why dont you go fuck yourself fuckfase Jermon.
easy I loaths this guy fuck off jerom

User was given a one day time-out for this post

[spanky4ever]

[momuuu]

[Garja]

Given some recent circumstances, I think the underlying axioms of EP balancing process should be revisited.
In particular I think these rules should be seriously considered:

1) Changes should aim to keep consistency intact as much as possible. Consistency is a proxy of balance so anything that breaks consistency should be completely justified.

2) Changes should aim to keep the playing experience intact, meaning that a player of a certain civ shouldn't be discouraged to play said civ even in case of a nerf. This rule does open up for some interpretation and ambguity but the key concept is that balance changes should be as indirect as possible, tweaking balance while not affecting the way someone used to play a certain civ. The only exception should be in case of something clearly broken (e.g. a unit or feature being clearly OP). Specifically, one civ's playing style shouldn't be questioned and labeled as broken (e.g. ottoman or sioux low eco play style).
A corollary of this rule is that if a certain playstyle is too strong we shouldn't completely deny that, but rather smoothen its features to bring it within what is considered acceptable for balance (e.g. nerf iro rush but don't remove that possibility, changing the way Iro should be played).

3) Changes should be as minimalistic as possible. This is still very much a requirement, not only because it helps abiding the previous rules, but also because it keeps things objective. Introducing big changes, especially in regard to design, risks to make EP more of a mod than a balance patch and thus introduces subjectivity. EP changes should be objective for a matter of fairness and thus to keep everyone satisfied.
Another reason for minimalism is reversibility of changes. It is way easier to revert a change with minimal effect (a tweak of values) than something that completely redesign a civ.

[sebnan12]

i really like the current ep :)
its pretty cool imo!
thx balance team once again for the effort ;*