Treaty Balance Changes Notes

User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7257
Joined: Feb 15, 2015
Location: California

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Cometk »

ocemilky wrote:Making all of these concessions and "hiding" changes in imperial upgrades is a huge hassle and can lead to problems in late game sup.
is this an issue with coding into the imperial techs?

i've been fudging around in techtreey.xml and it actually seems simpler to edit than it is the unit stats in protoy.xml

for example, the proposed changes of (+75%/+75%, +2 range, +0.5 multiplier to HI) applied to macehualtin:
[spoiler=spoiler]<Effects>
<Effect type ='SetName' proto ='xpMacehualtin' culture ='none' newName ='44218'></Effect>
<Effect type ='Data' amount ='2.00' subtype ='LOS' relativity ='Absolute'>
<Target type ='ProtoUnit'>xpMacehualtin</Target></Effect>
<Effect type ='Data' action ='VolleyRangedAttack' amount ='2.00' subtype ='MaximumRange' relativity ='Absolute'>
<Target type ='ProtoUnit'>xpMacehualtin</Target></Effect>
<Effect type ='Data' action ='StaggerRangedAttack' amount ='2.00' subtype ='MaximumRange' relativity ='Absolute'>
<Target type ='ProtoUnit'>xpMacehualtin</Target></Effect>
<Effect type ='Data' action ='DefendRangedAttack' amount ='2.00' subtype ='MaximumRange' relativity ='Absolute'>
<Target type ='ProtoUnit'>xpMacehualtin</Target></Effect>
<Effect type ='Data' amount ='0.50' subtype ='DamageBonus' unittype ='AbstractHeavyInfantry' allactions ='1' relativity ='Absolute'>
<Target type ='ProtoUnit'>xpMacehualtin</Target></Effect>
<Effect type ='Data' amount ='1.75' subtype ='Hitpoints' relativity ='BasePercent'>
<Target type ='ProtoUnit'>xpMacehualtin</Target></Effect>
<Effect type ='Data' amount ='1.75' subtype ='Damage' allactions ='1' relativity ='BasePercent'>
<Target type ='ProtoUnit'>xpMacehualtin</Target></Effect>
</Effects>[/spoiler]
Image
User avatar
United States of America iCourt
Retired Contributor
Posts: 700
Joined: Jan 14, 2016
ESO: iCourt
Location: Monterey, California

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by iCourt »

Jerom wrote:Its not exactly adding a new civ right. Its just copy pasting the same civ with different balance. That shouldnt be too hard right?

It's not as easy as that... Also what would stop someone from using treaty Iros in supremacy and abusing food/gold Tomas for instance. It's messy and doesn't look professional...
No Flag DemonDog
Skirmisher
Posts: 128
Joined: Dec 30, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by DemonDog »

Just play sup guys.
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sep 16, 2015
ESO: _NiceKING_
GameRanger ID: 9999999
Clan: Xbox

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by _NiceKING_ »

iCourt wrote:
Jerom wrote:Its not exactly adding a new civ right. Its just copy pasting the same civ with different balance. That shouldnt be too hard right?

It's not as easy as that... Also what would stop someone from using treaty Iros in supremacy and abusing food/gold Tomas for instance. It's messy and doesn't look professional...

It would not be possible to take treaty civ in sup if you make it "dm" style. You can't take "dm" HC in sup right?
User avatar
United States of America iCourt
Retired Contributor
Posts: 700
Joined: Jan 14, 2016
ESO: iCourt
Location: Monterey, California

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by iCourt »

Yes but DM and Sup use the same stats, same cards, same everything. Only starting resources are different. I suppose you could set it up like that, but it'd take a whole lot of work make sure it is all working properly. I'd like to say this "concept" is possible in that regard, however time wise I'm not sure who would have the time or the skills necessary to make this happen.

My opinion on the changes: I think this patch will have the same problem FP 1.2 had which was standardizing the civs, rather than just changing the aspects that make a civ OP. Too many changes makes people uneasy and dooms a fan patch.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by zoom »

ocemilky wrote:It seems people are so vexed on having both patches merged that they forget how big of a task it is. Making all of these concessions and "hiding" changes in imperial upgrades is a huge hassle and can lead to problems in late game sup. In all, treaty and supremacy are too different at all stages of the game for it to be balanced on one merged patch.

While I encourage critique, I do not appreciate people calling some of our changes bad just because they don't fit with supremacy. That is completely missing the point, it's a treaty patch not a supremacy patch. Focus on the treaty balance changes. I don't see an issue with swapping between them if we can get a launcher with EP. It will take like 10 seconds as Magnam pointed out.

I love all the hard work the EP team has invested. I want to collaborate with them with say a launcher and an anti-cheat. But merging the two is too complicated and not something I think is necessary to the game. At the end of the day, I don't care how many players use it. If it's a good patch, people who care will use it. If it's not, then I can work more on it or just not use it. if it's just the top 10 players using it then I'd be extremely happy.

One thing that has been pointed out is how native civs will still run out of wood on other maps. I've tried to adjust wood costs on core units to compensate for maps lacking wood, however I agree that I may not have done enough. It's something I need to look into.

People have mentioned that so many changes will be a major turn off for players. I don't know if you understand how broken treaty is. I do however like the idea of patch 1.0 only including changes to OP civs, then 1.1 could be UP civs etc. This way we can break down and get used to the differences and probably result in a more accurate patch. I'll continue to ponder.

My priority at the moment is balance the civs then look at the maps.

Hiding changes in Imperial improvements is something I would consider a last resort, and should be avoided almost as much as removing uniqueness and options.

Merging the patches isn't necessary by any means, but it would be beneficial. Who's calling your changes bad just because they don't fit with Supremacy, by the way?

My main point of criticism is that you appear (given the number and limiting nature of the changes) to struggle with identifying the issues and addressing them in a direct and meaningful way. I repeat: With too many changes lacking focus and precision, you risk putting people off. In general I would advise against limiting options and standardizing.
User avatar
No Flag Magnam
Musketeer
Posts: 81
Joined: Oct 1, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Magnam »

I also have a few ideas for the patch. I don't like too drastical changes.

I'm a huge fan of the infinitive mango grove rickshaw for native civs. However it would be too strong for them imo. Thats why I suggest to make units that cost wood cost slightly more wood. (Aztecs for example Maces + 10 wood and cojotes + 10 wood.) Thats because u have no walking time arround the map to get to the wood and u can savely gather it in your base.

I don't like the idea to give pets (tigers, jaguars etc. a new unit status but I see where you coming from). I would suggest to give them the light infantry tag. Everything else would made them useless. Instead of changing their unit stats you could also change their hp/atk stats slightly.

Aztecs
I like the mace and warrior priest change. However they will still suffer from the same problems as before. Tower/wall spam. My idea was to give arrow knights a higer siege range. Keep the normal range as it is now but make the siege range as long as normal morts are or something like 38. Therefor either their range resist or their hp has to be nerfed. Otherwise they would be too strong.

Dutch
I kinda feel they are a bit overbuffed but I really can't say that in theory. This has to be tested in some games.

France
I didn't really play france but I still have some ideas.
The cannon speed change can be really really strong. You can't really pull your culvs back anymore because france culvs will just catch up. So the only way to win culv war is to outnumber france culvs which will be hard for some civs because france cannons train so fast. Imo this change is the opposite what u want to achive with the infinitive cannon shipments limit.
I also don't like the fact to remove cuirs. You can keep both cuirs and huss. Make cuirs more expensive and slightly nerf their stats, so they become a really situational unit and keep huss as they are right now. So the french playerhas to decide from the given situation what kind of cav he has to use. (I know it requiers alot of testing to find the perfect costs/stats for cuirs but I really don't like to kill this feature completly)
-how about removing the fast art card for france?

India
please let them build native embassys. Otherwise they won't be able to play with nats on any maps imo.

Otto
I'm not sure if their eco will be good enough for playing outside nats. Has to be tested. (maybe add one more eco card)
I don't like to the change to give cav archers ranged resist. Most civs already use skirm/goon/huss combos. Otto is fine with abus/jans/huss combo. Cav archers were situational and u sometimes need them, but I'm not a huge fan of making them the standard play. I'm also against the infinitive bombard but we also discussed that in a different thread iirc. :D

Ports
I agree with the range nerf for morts. Its needed.
I don't understand why the church xbows have to be removed.

Russia
Tbh I like the idea that russia can make forts. Instead of removing this feature completly why u don't nerf the fort stats and raise the cost. Also make sevastopol not affect forts.
If we just remove everything that is too op we will standardizing too much.
Again I don't like the hc shipment.
Also the opri nerf is too much.

Sioux
I really liked the change which was made in the last tr patch iirc. Give sioux 1 infinitve mort shipment for 400-500 gold. The mort is not affected by tipis.
Otherwise I think the cetan bow change could work too. Its just that its kinda akward to play with arrow knigt siege units. For example u can't shiftclick buildings/walls with them because after they kill the building/wall they will walk right to the place where the building/wall was. Thats really annoying when u want to kill the 4-5 base walls.
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gichtenlord »

Magnam wrote:I also have a few ideas for the patch. I don't like too drastical changes.

I'm a huge fan of the infinitive mango grove rickshaw for native civs. However it would be too strong for them imo. Thats why I suggest to make units that cost wood cost slightly more wood. (Aztecs for example Maces + 10 wood and cojotes + 10 wood.) Thats because u have no walking time arround the map to get to the wood and u can savely gather it in your base.


My advise for that would be to limit it to one mango grove at a time and also limit the amount of vills which can gather on it(maybe 10-15).

Edit: I like the idea of an infinite mort shipment, it should be a bit cheaper imo
r]
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gichtenlord »

My comments about the patch so far.
[spoiler=spoiler]
General
All (useful) team bonuses on cards removed
Removing team cards from the game is a good move, imo, because they favor certain civs even more(e.g. ger-team cav attack buffs erks and cojotes by a lot, because they are tagged as light infantry) or just make certain match ups almost unplayable(e.g. 3 shot culvs for pretty much any nilla civ). Not to forget, that cards like team 2 sw, team 3 vills, team food silo give such a huge advantage for the respective team, its better to just remove them and let the game being decided by the skill of players and not by having an op teamcomposition

Cheaper Natives changed to -20% resources (from -25%)
Cheaper nats should stay the way it is, imo. Seems more like a remnant from our previous fanpatch(which was probably horrible, lol).

Native Warrior Societies (+33% native unit build limit) removed.
I think you can keep it for the respective civs. The civs who have this card usually struggle in some aspect, so its fine for them

Infinite Native cards have undergone changes. The current thought is that they’re very strong and we want to draw back game-deciding actions to skill as opposed to simply massing. These changes in general buff the more underpowered cards and nerf the overpowered ones. This should also ease the burden on civs without infinite native overpop. Costs remain the same.
Reducing the amount of homecity nats is fine.

Still in the context of skill verses mass, another issue has been infinite artillery cards. While these cards add a unique playstyle, simply by sending a card they can obtain the most powerful artillery in the game for free. It has become apparent that these cards are too big of a power spike for free, particularly when both players are almost out of resources and one can just send 2 rockets or a heavy cannon. Rather than remove them, we’ve decided to cap these artillery units and add costs.

Rockets - Now capped at 6 units
Infinite 2 rocket shipment (British) - now costs 600 gold
Heavy Cannon - Now capped at 4 units
Infinite 1 Heavy Cannon (Russians, Germans) - now costs 400 gold
Flying Crows - Now capped at 6 units not complete
Infinite 1 Flying Crow - Now costs 250 gold
Great Bombard - Now capped at 3 units.
Infinite 1 Great Bombard shipment (Ottoman) costs 400 gold.
Capping heavy artillery is also something which is definitely needed, although I dont know if these caps are still to high.
The only thing I'd call in whole patch as standardizing is giving russians and ottos also a infite heavy artillery card. I think, in the current state of otto, they need the great bombard to compete with the high eco civs like brit and ger, while Im not sure about russia. Russias eco is already decent and they are able to just spam horse artillery and culverins. Im gonna come back to that at the russian changes.



Aztec
Macehualtin now have 90 hp, 9 damage, 2.5x vs HI and 16 range (was 80hp 8 damage 2x vs HI, 16 range). Also now cost 40 food 30 gold (40 food 30 wood)
Im not sure about chaiging maces cost to gold, I think its fine to keep it on on food + wood and just change maps to have more wood or give every twc civ some kind of constant wood income.

Jaguar Prowl Knights now have 300 hp, 15 damage, 2.5x vs HI
Dont know the stats from prowl knights, but Lukas mentioned it was a nerf, not sure why you would nerf them.

Arrow Knight cost changed to 50 wood 75 gold (from 50 food 75 gold) not complete
Not sure about that, but I think it doesn't matter too much.

War Hut Training card additionally reduces Coyote and Eagle Runner Knights training time by -30% (this is due to these units not being tagged as “infantry” and so do not benefit from Fencing School card).
Yeah, why not.

Warrior Priests no longer cost population
Good change.

British
Yeoman card now only gives +2 range to Longbows (down from +4)
Infinite 2 rocket shipment now costs 600 gold, Rockets capped at 6 units.
Rockets now have a 0.8x vs cavalry not complete
Not much to say, changes are fine. You might want to give brits lb guard and imp up from the start without sending a card, but thats a minor change.



China
There is still a long way to go with China. Playing China with a full deck, this civ is so incredibly strong only France can beat it.This civ will remain unfinished for some time as we continue to test changes. Currently in the meta we allow 99 vills no livestock no team engineering school and China is still tier 1. Watch this space.
Im not sure if they are tier 1. They are just really good in spamming decent melee units, which is good vs some civs(e.g. ottos, ports, india). This advatage might be gone with all the changes these other civs get.

Infinite 2 Flying Crows card reduced to 1 Flying Crow
Im sure that china is worse than brits overall with 99 vills only, so why dont give them atleast something decent for the lategame?

Native Warrior Attack card now only increases native unit damage by 10%, additionally reduces native unit cost by 20% ()
Should be fine.

Native Warrior Hitpoints card no longer grants movement speed bonus, now only increases native hitpoints by 10%.
I think this card was kinda decent on RE, because tad civs dont have embassies and needed the speed bonus to get faster to the fight, but this card looks kinda useless now.



Fulling Mills card - Removed
I wouldnt completely remove it. What about a change to like 100-150%?

Engineering School card - Despite no longer giving team affects, this card will remain at -30% train time for artillery.
Fine.

Siege Hitpoints card - Now only affects Hand Mortars as opposed to all Artillery not complete
Siege Attack card - Now only affects Hand Mortars as opposed to all Artillery not complete
Siege Combat card - Now only affects Hand Mortars as opposed to all Artillery not complete
Should still buff flying crows. They will still be 2 shot-able anyway.


We saw 1k HP heavy cannons from the German consulate. Units from the consulate should not be more powerful than their European counterpart. In addition, China already has a strong melee push and a ranged camp. Their ability to make heavy cannons is unnecessary especially when they get infinite flying crows.

Heavy Cannons no longer trainable from German consulate. not complete
Not sure about that, I think it was an interesting thing for china.

No longer gain + 20 villagers from Imperial wonder construction (leading to 119 villager pop)
Now can only gain +8 villagers if constructed from colonial to fortress age. Gives no villagers for later ages needs fixing
Yeah, that seems fine,

Maximum population reduced to 210 from 220 not yet complete
Must be tested.

Keshik - now cost 115 gold (from 135 food), now have 130 HP, 12 damage, .30 Ranged Resistance

INPUT NEEDED

There is ongoing discussion for the War Academy as whether to create military units individually (not likely to push through with this) as with a barracks, keep the banner armies as they are, or adjust banner armies to better-suited compositions.

My suggestions:

Old Han - 3 Chu Ko Nu, 3 Qiang Pikemen unchanged
Standard - 3 Chu Ko nu, 2 Keshik
Ming - 3 Changdao, 3 Qiang Pikemen
Territorial - 3 Changdao, 3 Arquebusier unchanged
Forbidden - 2 Iron Flail, 2 Meteor Hammer unchanged
Imperial - 3 Chu Ko Nu, 2 Iron Flail
Looks interesting, although I dont know why u completely removed steppriders from standard army.


Dutch
Dutch struggle to keep up with almost every civilization due to several factors - average to underpowered army and poor economy. We’re giving both their economy and their military-power buffs to ensure they are a competitive civ. In line with previous comments on massing, we’re shifting more of the economic buffs into villager population; this means we can buff their military as well without being too warey of a 150 pop mass of above average units.

Villager limit increased to 65 from 50. No longer gain +4 villagers from age 4 politician.

Coffee Trade (from the religious freedom/church card) additionally increases bank production by 10%

Tulip Speculation card now increases bank production by an additional 5%.

We are ware these changes may not be enough of a buff to their economy. We’re still figuring this out.

Bank of Amsterdam card now increases bank build limit by 2 not complete

Bank of Rotterdam card removed. not complete

This card slot might allow for South Sea Bubble card to be more of a viable economic strategy.

Military Reforms card now only reduces Halberdier damage vs infantry by -0.20 (from -0.25) however also increases hitpoints by 20%. Speed bonus now 15% (from 20%)

Ruyter - (age 3 stats) now have 192 hitpoints, 16 Range, 0.30 Ranged Resistance
Looks fine, I dont have much experience with dutch, so I cant say much anyway. Although they might still need some cheaper artillery




France
Food Silos card removed

This change may prove unnecessary however further testing is required

Wilderness Warfare card now only affects Coureurs and Skirmishers, now only increases hitpoints by 10% (down from 20%)
Age 2 Improved Native Warriors card removed
Age 3 Improved Native Warriors card now only affects native warrior damage and hitpoints by 10% (down from 25%)
Good changes, would have been too op in 1vs1.

Gribeauval System card now increases artillery speed by 5% (from +25% damage to culverins, mortars, horse artillery and falconets)
Meh, useless card. What about like 10% more damage for horse artillery/falconets to give them something vs infite heavy artillery from other civs?

Code Napoleon tech (from Edict of Nantes (church) card) now grants courier +60% hitpoints, +10% speed. No longer increases gather rate/building cost.
Looks interesting, although its not really a big deal.

Garde Imperial 3 now additionally grants Imperial upgrade for grenadiers; allows grenadiers to be trained from artillery foundary

We decided that in order to balance Cuirassier, they had to be similar to Hussar. We saw no point in keeping both.
Cuirassier - Now costs 130 food, 100 gold. New stats are 450 hitpoints, 26 damage (from 500 hitpoints, 30 damage). Splash removed.
Ok. This might be a bit too standardized, but it's fine if u give france to some degree superior stats to a hussar



Germans
Ulhans with every (useful) shipment removed

Germans now have normal xp generation (from a 10% deficit)

Infinite Heavy Cannon card now costs 400 gold, Heavy Cannon limit set to 4
Yeah, should be fine, although u should maybe change xp generation to like 5% deficit? They might get too many cards out pre40.




India
Native Alliance Card now reduces native warrior cost by -20%
Native Warrior Hitpoints now grants +10% hitpoints, no longer grants speed bonus.
Oh well, not sure about that for india

Mahout now have 960 hitpoints, 6 population (from 1100 hp, 7 pop). Cost changed to 350 food 250 wood (from 400 food, 250 wood)
Decent change, although I'd keep the amount of hp.

Siege Elephants now have 400 hp, 0.75 ranged resistance, 32 range, splash to 2, 6 population (from 700 hp, 0.3 range resist, 7 population).
That kind of range was necessary for them, although I dont know how good they trade vs 4-5 culvs with their low hp.

Shivaji’s Tactics card - now increases unit damage and hitpoints by 8% (from 5%), also now decreases infantry training time by 8%. not complete
Good change.

Tigers now have an infantry tag - can now be countered by units other than villagers! Orange tigers now cost 110 food (from 135)
Which units have a multiplier vs 'infantry'? Artillery and some cav units? In my opinion they should be light infantry, but that might be op. Needs some testing.

We want to free up some population for India - they’re just about on the cusp of being tier 1. The changes to siege elephants should also make them more competitive when dealing with artillery.
India is currently far away from being tier 1, lol.

I think u forgot one of indias biggest flaws, which is that their elephant units are too easy to target and outmicro and mahouts also struggle with bad pathing. I'd be interested in changing howdahs and mahouts by halving their stats and pop(ofc it has to be an even number, maybe just remove the india card which reduce elefant pop by 1 then). Some ppl would call that standardizing, but its probably better than just buffing elephants, which wont matter anyways, because they are can still easily be targeted.
What about training infantry faster?



Iroquois
I’ll be leaving Iroquois and Sioux until last, however we have some ideas. At the moment, Iroquois is either super strong or super weak, depending on how much wood is on the map. They are also cancer to play against due to cheap but strong, spammable cannons, 119 vills, livestock, fur trade, 25 pop from firepit, and 45 pop-free units with their native cards. They also have the best natives in the game. We want to draw back their economy, their reliance on wood, and their spammy cannon playstyle while rewarding good firepit micro and unit control.

Imperial Age up - 20 villagers changed to 5 Warrior Priests INPUT NEEDED

Population Dance removed not complete

Artillery Population card removed

Native Combat card removed

Infantry Attack, Infantry hitpoints, and Infantry Combat cards now longer affect natives not complete

Tomahawks now cost 75 food 25 gold (from 75 food 25 wood) not complete

Kanya Horseman now cost 100 food and 75 gold (from 100 food and 75 wood)

Manlets now cost 100 wood 130 gold (from 75 wood 125 gold), now have 380 hitpoints (from 400) not complete


Alright, I worry here a lot about these changes. I think that these ones are really really bad for iro.
Whats Iroqs current situation:
Pros:
-Strong Military(artillery decent vs infantry and artillery, strong musks, strong nats/-shipments)
-Strong boom(livestock, 120 vills, firepit for fast vill production)
- Firepit(25 overpop, damage buff)
Cons:
- Dependend on trees as only wood source
- Dependend on teammates to secure map for trees, but also that iro is able to only focus on nats fight
- Bad in small skirmishes -> Problems to handle running/jumps
- Once out of gold or wood, they are pretty much dead, because they cannot replenish it

My approach to fix iros, would be to nerf their army, but also buff their economy in the lategame
Suggestions:
Economy:
- Give them an extra gold card
- As ppl before me suggested, it should be possible to send a mango grove, but limit it to only 1 at a time and max 10-15(needs testing)
- Another approach for fixing their coin/wood problem is to buff their infinite res shipment. Maybe something like 750/750 wood/gold?
- Reducing overpop vills to 10
- Their food economy seems fine for me, but if they want to swich to plantations, iros should slowly drain on food

Military:
- removing nats from being buffed by any card is a good idea
- maybe weaken the damage buff dance
- one more pop for light cannons should be ok
- slightly buff tomahawks melee damage or melee multiplier vs cav
- slightly buff goons base damage or multiplier vs cav

Last 2 buffs are probably needed vs melee focused civs, since iros nats got nerfed hard.
Note that I have never really played a lot of iros and these are my observations from my games vs iro and also with iro as teammate


Japan
Villager limit increased to 80 (from 75)

Shrines can now train goats

Japan has a bit of an xp sink and struggle to fit a lot of their military cards into their deck. We’re hoping these card changes will free up more card diversity.

Stream of Enlightenment card removed (Enemy units nearby monks have less damage)

Japan have 3 rice paddy shipments on their own. We’ve combined two of them while slightly buffing Chonindo to make up for the lost increase.

Reclaimed Land delivers 1 rice paddy and now increases rice paddy gather rate by 10%

Flooded Parcel card combined into Reclaimed land card.

Chonindo increased to 10% gather increase (from 8%)

We’re slightly tweaking Japan’s insane infantry stats due to the eco buffs. We’re also trying to encourage more production from buildings as Daimyo/Shogun are too mobile to train units at such a speed.

Bakufu card now makes Daimyo and Shoguns train units 30% slower but stables and barracks train 30% faster (from twice as fast on daimyo/shogun)

Yumi Archer Attack card increases damage by 10% (from 15%)

Ashigaru Musketeer Attack card increases Ashi damage by 10% (from 15%)

Way of the Bow now only increases Yumi hitpoints by 10% (from 15%)

Close Combat card now only increases Ashigaru hitpoints by 10% (from 15%)

Morutaru Range card now only adds 4 range to Morutaru (from 6)

Native Warrior Attack now only increases warrior damage by 10% (

Native Alliance now decreases native cost by 20%

We how Japan’s power comes mainly from their infantry. We’ve slightly buffed flaming arrows to bring them closer towards a culverin.

Flaming Arrow range increased to 30 (from 28), multiplier vs artillery increased to 1.7 (from 1.5) not complete


Changes seem fine, although I dont know why artillery multiplier to 1.7. Is it needed to 2-shot culvs?

Ottoman
Ottomans are in a similar position as India where they are nearly a balanced civ. We want to open up more viable strategies than massing abus behind natives to make them competitive. One of their biggest issues was underpowered cards - there simply wasn’t enough good cards for Otto to take, relative to any other civ. We’ve adjusted some of their cards slightly.

Added 1 Infinite Great Bombard card. Bombard limit set to 3, card costs 400 gold. not complete
Artillery Hitpoints card moved to age 3.

The Ottoman economy appears to be on the cusp of being competitive. Rather than adding an eco card that will benefit them for the duration of the game, we thought that Otto just need a slight push. Seeing as their eco is more focussed on their villager maxing time, we decided to buff their eco in that direction.

Mosque changes:

The following techs still increase max vill pop/villager training speed by the same amount. Not only should this speed up maxing time by about 2 minutes, the costs of the techs are less of a burden at those stages of the game.

Galata Tower District - Costs 100 food 100 gold, delivers 2 settlers
Topkapi - Costs 200 food, 200 wood, 200 gold, delivers 4 settlers
Tabzimat - Costs 300 food, 300 wood, 300 gold, delivers 6 villagers

Abbasid Market - Costs 400 wood (from 600) not complete

Palace Intrigue (church card) - Tufanci corps tech now additionally increases Janissary training speed by 10%

Janissary melee multiplier vs cavalry now 2.5 (from 2.0), vs light infantry now 2.0 (from 1.5)

Cavalry Archers now have .20 ranged resistance (from .20 melee resistance)

Interesting changes to buff their boom, although I dont know why u dont just increase inf training speed by 10%. In a teamgame it is not really a big deal, but in a 1vs1 it might be, because any other civs can pretty much spam nats faster


Portuguese
Ports are one of the closest civs to being balanced. However certain aspects make them the most frustrating civ to play against. This slight nerf to mortars should draw back some of the insane pressure ports can mount while camping. Consider the changes to explorers in the general section a nerf to ports.

Rangefinding now increases mortar range by 8 (from 10) not yet complete

Treaty of Tordesillas (church card):
Besteiros (xbowmen) tech removed
Cheaper Natives tech added - native units are 10% cheaper, costs 500 wood. needs fixing

Looks fine.

Russia
Rather than touching Russia’s infantry, we decided giving them Heavy Cannons would be a better fix for their lacking power. Their absurd map control has switched from an almost unkillable building to more in line with other civs.

Infinite 1 Heavy Cannon card added, costs 400 gold
Heavy Cannon capped at 4 units
Well, thats what I'd call standardizing. Might not be the best choice.

Strelet range increased to 16 from 14

Cossack now have 220 hitpoints and 24 damage (from 225 hitpoints and 26 damage)
I dont think u have to nerf cossacks. They are already expensive.

National Redoubt card now allows musketeers to build blockhouses, stables, and artillery foundries (no longer allows buildable forts)

Sevastopol card no longer affects blockhouses; effect reduced to -25% build points (from -50%)
But why? I dont really understand this nerf

Oprichnik siege damage reduced to 25 (from 75) not complete



Spain
Spain only needs a brief touch up to slightly scale back their early army advantage while slowing their fall-off later in the game.

Spain can now age to 3 with fast age, age to 4 with 1k coin

Missionaries no longer cost population

Lancers now have 0.5 multiplier vs Heavy Infantry. This should still give them a 2x bonus vs Heavy Infantry after Caballeros card. needs fixing

Lets see how spain gonna be with 10 more pop. I still think they will struggle vs civs with good lategame shipments[/spoiler]
r]
User avatar
Greece TomGR
Musketeer
Posts: 59
Joined: Sep 7, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by TomGR »

About the mortar idea for Sioux: (give an infinite mortar shipment instead of cetan bows that can siege)
So far we have an infinite bison shipment, an infinite mango grove and now an infinite mortar shipment. I would only use 1 of these cards on my deck. Guess which card it would be...

You guys should stop trying to fix the problems by giving infinite shipments, not only for sioux but for the rest of the civs as well. In my opinion all civs should have maximum 2 useful infinite shipments because at some point you won't have space in your deck. Moreover, every time you send a card that solves the wood problem, for example, it means that you are delaying another card. The more cards you have to choose from the bigger the problem becomes.

The way I would tackle the wood problem is lowering the wood costs of the units (which is in the patch notes) and put more wood on the maps (which has already been done for the previous Treaty tournament). The reason why I would rather make a change to the maps, instead of changing the civs, is because the fact that TWC civs depend so much on gathering wood from the map forces the teams to fight for map control. Wood should not be a scarce resource after 40 but you should definitely fight to earn it instead of gathering it next to your town center. Well that 's just my opinion.
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gichtenlord »

TomGR wrote:About the mortar idea for Sioux: (give an infinite mortar shipment instead of cetan bows that can siege)
So far we have an infinite bison shipment, an infinite mango grove and now an infinite mortar shipment. I would only use 1 of these cards on my deck. Guess which card it would be...

You guys should stop trying to fix the problems by giving infinite shipments, not only for sioux but for the rest of the civs as well. In my opinion all civs should have maximum 2 useful infinite shipments because at some point you won't have space in your deck. Moreover, every time you send a card that solves the wood problem, for example, it means that you are delaying another card. The more cards you have to choose from the bigger the problem becomes.

The way I would tackle the wood problem is lowering the wood costs of the units (which is in the patch notes) and put more wood on the maps (which has already been done for the previous Treaty tournament). The reason why I would rather make a change to the maps, instead of changing the civs, is because the fact that TWC civs depend so much on gathering wood from the map forces the teams to fight for map control. Wood should not be a scarce resource after 40 but you should definitely fight to earn it instead of gathering it next to your town center. Well that 's just my opinion.

As far as I know sioux do not struggle as much with wood as iroq and aztecs. They might be fine with just more wood on the map :P
r]
User avatar
Greece TomGR
Musketeer
Posts: 59
Joined: Sep 7, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by TomGR »

Gichtenlord wrote:
TomGR wrote:About the mortar idea for Sioux: (give an infinite mortar shipment instead of cetan bows that can siege)
So far we have an infinite bison shipment, an infinite mango grove and now an infinite mortar shipment. I would only use 1 of these cards on my deck. Guess which card it would be...

You guys should stop trying to fix the problems by giving infinite shipments, not only for sioux but for the rest of the civs as well. In my opinion all civs should have maximum 2 useful infinite shipments because at some point you won't have space in your deck. Moreover, every time you send a card that solves the wood problem, for example, it means that you are delaying another card. The more cards you have to choose from the bigger the problem becomes.

The way I would tackle the wood problem is lowering the wood costs of the units (which is in the patch notes) and put more wood on the maps (which has already been done for the previous Treaty tournament). The reason why I would rather make a change to the maps, instead of changing the civs, is because the fact that TWC civs depend so much on gathering wood from the map forces the teams to fight for map control. Wood should not be a scarce resource after 40 but you should definitely fight to earn it instead of gathering it next to your town center. Well that 's just my opinion.

As far as I know sioux do not struggle as much with wood as iroq and aztecs. They might be fine with just more wood on the map :P


Yes, wood should almost never be a problem for Sioux.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by zoom »

ocemilky wrote:It seems people are so vexed on having both patches merged that they forget how big of a task it is. Making all of these concessions and "hiding" changes in imperial upgrades is a huge hassle and can lead to problems in late game sup. In all, treaty and supremacy are too different at all stages of the game for it to be balanced on one merged patch.

While I encourage critique, I do not appreciate people calling some of our changes bad just because they don't fit with supremacy. That is completely missing the point, it's a treaty patch not a supremacy patch. Focus on the treaty balance changes. I don't see an issue with swapping between them if we can get a launcher with EP. It will take like 10 seconds as Magnam pointed out.

...

In fact, I just read through the entire thread to check, and I don't see a single person even alluding to any change of yours being bad because it doesn't fit with Supremacy. That begs the question: Who's missing whose point?

In case you are referring to me, then please give reading my posts another chance, because that's not at all what I mean to say. Finally, I'm actually not talking about combining both patches, although I do think that would be worth an attempt at the very least.
User avatar
No Flag Magnam
Musketeer
Posts: 81
Joined: Oct 1, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Magnam »

TomGR wrote:About the mortar idea for Sioux: (give an infinite mortar shipment instead of cetan bows that can siege)
So far we have an infinite bison shipment, an infinite mango grove and now an infinite mortar shipment. I would only use 1 of these cards on my deck. Guess which card it would be...

You guys should stop trying to fix the problems by giving infinite shipments, not only for sioux but for the rest of the civs as well. In my opinion all civs should have maximum 2 useful infinite shipments because at some point you won't have space in your deck. Moreover, every time you send a card that solves the wood problem, for example, it means that you are delaying another card. The more cards you have to choose from the bigger the problem becomes.

The way I would tackle the wood problem is lowering the wood costs of the units (which is in the patch notes) and put more wood on the maps (which has already been done for the previous Treaty tournament). The reason why I would rather make a change to the maps, instead of changing the civs, is because the fact that TWC civs depend so much on gathering wood from the map forces the teams to fight for map control. Wood should not be a scarce resource after 40 but you should definitely fight to earn it instead of gathering it next to your town center. Well that 's just my opinion.


well its true that you can get wood by getting map control, but in some games u have a bad start or just lose some parts of the map. When that happens and u run out of wood u have no way to get back into the game with native civs and its not like native civs are strong enough to use alot of units to get map control without losing the main fight hard.
User avatar
Great Britain Panmaster
Skirmisher
Posts: 166
Joined: Jan 1, 2016

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Panmaster »

You can change the protoY.xms as much as you like but only Ensemble Studios changes are genuine. Treaty is perfect the way it is and always has been.
TAD AI Reference Guide
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by momuuu »

Panmaster wrote:You can change the protoY.xms as much as you like but only Ensemble Studios changes are genuine. Treaty is perfect the way it is and always has been.

#Kappa
No Flag charlemagen
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 478
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
ESO: Charlemagen
Location: California

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by charlemagen »

Okay I am just going to make this clear, We will not be combining Treaty Patch and Sup Patch. It's not happening so please stop posting about how/why we should combine the two.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by zoom »

charlemagen wrote:Okay I am just going to make this clear, We will not be combining Treaty Patch and Sup Patch. It's not happening so please stop posting about how/why we should combine the two.

I wonder if you actually even read my posts. I am not at all asking you to do so.
No Flag charlemagen
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 478
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
ESO: Charlemagen
Location: California

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by charlemagen »

zoom wrote:
charlemagen wrote:Okay I am just going to make this clear, We will not be combining Treaty Patch and Sup Patch. It's not happening so please stop posting about how/why we should combine the two.

I wonder if you actually even read my posts. I am not at all asking you to do so.

was not for you at all lmao
User avatar
Bavaria Gichtenlord
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1437
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gichtenlord »

zoom wrote:
charlemagen wrote:Okay I am just going to make this clear, We will not be combining Treaty Patch and Sup Patch. It's not happening so please stop posting about how/why we should combine the two.

I wonder if you actually even read my posts. I am not at all asking you to do so.

People were asking about it a lot the the last weeks, thats why.
r]
No Flag charlemagen
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 478
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
ESO: Charlemagen
Location: California

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by charlemagen »

i know, i just want to keep the thread for bettering the patch we have and getting peoples opinion on the patch itself.
User avatar
Canada _NiceKING_
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sep 16, 2015
ESO: _NiceKING_
GameRanger ID: 9999999
Clan: Xbox

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by _NiceKING_ »

Would be good if you guys streamed the games on the patch, especially 1v1. Players would see how the changes work in real games.
User avatar
United States of America dicktator_
Howdah
EWT
Posts: 1565
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
ESO: Conquerer999

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by dicktator_ »

Btw regarding the patch:

-Asian civs need to have embassies (pretty sure they just forgot to write that in)
-India needs the ranged cav tag on siege eles removed (so they aren't countered by skirms. Again probably a write up error.)
-Iro needs an infinite res shipment boost and/or a coin card at the very least... I like Gichtenlord's ideas on Iro
-Opri should not be killed as a siege unit. They should be nerfed in siege damage and/or speed, but they should still remain a siege unit. Maybe riding school shouldn't effect opris so that battlefield construction opri running isn't too OP, but don't kill opris as a siege unit.
-We should consider nerfing teepees and/or making it so that they don't effect Cetan Bows if we do end up implementing the Cetan Bow change. Sioux with a way to deal with mortars at range might make their teepee mass too strong.

These are the only glaring problems I saw with the patch after reading it all the way through. Other things that are debatable/not so pressing:
-The TWC civs should have some sort of infinite wood source.
-Arrow Knights IMO should have a slight siege damage increase and/or as magnam suggested a siege range increase.
-Maybe consider removing the heavy cannon for Russia and slightly buffing infantry stats instead. As cool as Russia with heavy cannons would be to play, it really is a step towards standardizing the civs. I like the infinite Great Bombard shipment for Otto though because it's a unique artillery unit that only they can make.
-Consider giving tigers the light infantry tag instead of heavy infantry. I'm pretty sure Lukas is right, they would be too UP with the infantry tag because they would be useless in the face of skirm masses.
-Lots of different concerns with the Gribeauval System change lol. Some feel it would be too strong and others think it would do nothing. Might consider changing it so a slight (~10 percent) increase to horse artillery/falconet damage. Maybe consider removing artillery faster card because they still have 120 pop.

Edit: Response to Magnam's post. [spoiler=spoiler]
Magnam wrote:I also have a few ideas for the patch. I don't like too drastical changes.

I'm a huge fan of the infinitive mango grove rickshaw for native civs. However it would be too strong for them imo. Thats why I suggest to make units that cost wood cost slightly more wood. (Aztecs for example Maces + 10 wood and cojotes + 10 wood.) Thats because u have no walking time arround the map to get to the wood and u can savely gather it in your base.

I don't like the idea to give pets (tigers, jaguars etc. a new unit status but I see where you coming from). I would suggest to give them the light infantry tag. Everything else would made them useless. Instead of changing their unit stats you could also change their hp/atk stats slightly. Yeah I have the same concern. Might consider giving them the light infantry tag. The idea is that they have to be countered by something.

Aztecs
I like the mace and warrior priest change. However they will still suffer from the same problems as before. Tower/wall spam. My idea was to give arrow knights a higer siege range. Keep the normal range as it is now but make the siege range as long as normal morts are or something like 38. Therefor either their range resist or their hp has to be nerfed. Otherwise they would be too strong. Siege damage range increase is a cool idea.

Dutch
I kinda feel they are a bit overbuffed but I really can't say that in theory. This has to be tested in some games. Other people think it's not enough :D. Testing needed.

France
I didn't really play france but I still have some ideas.
The cannon speed change can be really really strong. You can't really pull your culvs back anymore because france culvs will just catch up. So the only way to win culv war is to outnumber france culvs which will be hard for some civs because france cannons train so fast. Imo this change is the opposite what u want to achive with the infinitive cannon shipments limit.
I also don't like the fact to remove cuirs. You can keep both cuirs and huss. Make cuirs more expensive and slightly nerf their stats, so they become a really situational unit and keep huss as they are right now. So the french playerhas to decide from the given situation what kind of cav he has to use. (I know it requiers alot of testing to find the perfect costs/stats for cuirs but I really don't like to kill this feature completely) Thing is, if we keep huss and Cuirs, what will happen is one unit will end up being better than the other. It's not the same as with Opris/Cossacks for Russia because Cuirs and Hussars both counter the same units (Skirms and artillery) and get countered by the same unit (ranged cav and heavy inf). It's like Spain. Hussars are good in literally only one situation; surprising your opponent during the start army in mirrors. In every other situation, Lancers are undoubtedly the better unit. They have more HP and do much more damage to infantry, while still doing their job against artillery. We wanted the cav unit for France to be Cuirs, because they are France's unique cavalry unit. We didn't want hussars to end up being the main cavalry unit for France.
-how about removing the fast art card for france? Something to be considered for sure.

India
please let them build native embassys. Otherwise they won't be able to play with nats on any maps imo. Agree, same for other TAD civs.

Otto
I'm not sure if their eco will be good enough for playing outside nats. Has to be tested. (maybe add one more eco card)
I don't like to the change to give cav archers ranged resist. Most civs already use skirm/goon/huss combos. Otto is fine with abus/jans/huss combo. Cav archers were situational and u sometimes need them, but I'm not a huge fan of making them the standard play. I'm also against the infinitive bombard but we also discussed that in a different thread iirc. :D I don't think a buff to cav archers will make them part of standard play, remember Jans were buffed as well. They should remain the situational units that they are/should be.

Ports
I agree with the range nerf for morts. Its needed.
I don't understand why the church xbows have to be removed. The Xbow tech was changed into the cheaper nats tech.

Russia
Tbh I like the idea that russia can make forts. Instead of removing this feature completly why u don't nerf the fort stats and raise the cost. Also make sevastopol not affect forts.
If we just remove everything that is too op we will standardizing too much. Dunno. Forts can train every single unit, for a building buildable by musk that's pretty fucking strong.
Again I don't like the hc shipment. Somewhat agree.
Also the opri nerf is too much. Agree fully.

Sioux
I really liked the change which was made in the last tr patch iirc. Give sioux 1 infinitve mort shipment for 400-500 gold. The mort is not affected by tipis. Idk, wouldn't that be standardizing? I suppose to an extent making Cetan bows an Arrow Knight like unit is kind of standardizing as well, though. Both are worth considering I guess.
Otherwise I think the cetan bow change could work too. Its just that its kinda akward to play with arrow knigt siege units. For example u can't shiftclick buildings/walls with them because after they kill the building/wall they will walk right to the place where the building/wall was. Thats really annoying when u want to kill the 4-5 base walls.


Edit 2: WTF bold isn't working?[/spoiler]
steniothejonjoe wrote:I can micro better than 99% of the player base and that's 100% objective
:mds:
No Flag Gobi_Todic
Crossbow
Posts: 1
Joined: Mar 3, 2016

Re: Treaty Balance Changes Notes

Post by Gobi_Todic »

Hi guys, Im going to be back in some serious treaty action. After nearly 5 inactive years i kinda missed the game, its still the best imho :D :D

I really appreciate your work and effort which you put in here milky, really looking forward to it.
I would never venture to criticize the patch notes because obviously Im far away from the game yet but am I the only who isnt in love with the idea to add walls to sioux? I loved playing them and it was something which made them unique. Of course they are not competitive but that really wasnt the main reason what made them so bad. It forced you to play with your team and I loved that.
With this in mind I wish you guys GG! :mrgreen:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 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