Treaty Balance Changes Notes

[Cometk]

I'm not going to try to make balance changes to treaty for supremacy, if that makes sense. I think trying to merge them is a bad idea because some changes affect both too much. I'd appreciate it if your comments on the balance changes are actually in the context of treaty balance, not sup balance.

well, what changes aren't possible? we can always find workarounds or different ways to do the same thing--for example, buffs/nerfs to imperial upgrades rather than base stat changes.

[fightinfrenchman]

I pretty strongly disagree with the idea of getting rid of team bonuses. I think specific ones are a bit too much (Portuguese team wall improvement and Russia's fast training infantry) but having team bonuses makes team games more fun and creates more possibilities. Why are they being removed?

If, for example, your opponent gets team sw/mills or team fast training infantry and you don't, that's a distinct advantage that they got for free. It is not very fair.

Well you can always choose the matchups. And I did specify that certain ones are too strong.

[_NiceKING_]

.

Btw are you considering to include New Andes (the old one, both for 1v1 and team), New Orinoco (from TR turne 1v1) and New Deccan (from tourne 1v1) to the patch to make them rated?

[_NiceKING_]

I pretty strongly disagree with the idea of getting rid of team bonuses. I think specific ones are a bit too much (Portuguese team wall improvement and Russia's fast training infantry) but having team bonuses makes team games more fun and creates more possibilities. Why are they being removed?

If, for example, your opponent gets team sw/mills or team fast training infantry and you don't, that's a distinct advantage that they got for free. It is not very fair.

Well you can always choose the matchups. And I did specify that certain ones are too strong.

Well, you should be picking civs based on what you feel like playing. You shouldn''t be picking civs based on their team cards.

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

I pretty strongly disagree with the idea of getting rid of team bonuses. I think specific ones are a bit too much (Portuguese team wall improvement and Russia's fast training infantry) but having team bonuses makes team games more fun and creates more possibilities. Why are they being removed?

If, for example, your opponent gets team sw/mills or team fast training infantry and you don't, that's a distinct advantage that they got for free. It is not very fair.

Well you can always choose the matchups. And I did specify that certain ones are too strong.

Well, you should be picking civs based on what you feel like playing. You shouldn''t be picking civs based on their team cards.

What's wrong with a team picking civs that work well together?

[_NiceKING_]

Show hidden quotes

If, for example, your opponent gets team sw/mills or team fast training infantry and you don't, that's a distinct advantage that they got for free. It is not very fair.

Well you can always choose the matchups. And I did specify that certain ones are too strong.

Well, you should be picking civs based on what you feel like playing. You shouldn''t be picking civs based on their team cards.

What's wrong with a team picking civs that work well together?

Nothing is wrong. I just think it is more interesting to pick civs based on what you feel like playing. I guess milky__ and others think the same way.

[ocemilky]

At the top of the notes it says that all team bonuses have been removed for pretty much every card useful to tr

[iCourt]

I currently have no kind of launcher or any anti-cheating systems in place. I will definitely be in contact with the EP team in the near future. No point in trying to split the community when we can collaborate!

If you need help coding the changes I'm able to help... There's a lot there. While I'll agree treaty is poorly balanced, I will note that making so many changes will probably turn off many players. I'd advise focusing on nerfing OP civs on a 1.0 patch then continuing changes on future releases. Regardless I'll leave the balance in your hands.

[dicktator_]

Team cards were removed because some civs get more out of them than others. India benefits from team mills more than any other civ, Spain benefits from team cav attack a lot more than most other civs, etc. It makes an already difficult gametype to balance even more difficult.

Regarding Iro, honestly I think they'll be fine if they're given a coin card and/or a boost to their infinite resource shipment so that they're not completely dead when they run out of coin. Iro had an insane mass, 105-125 pop military (potentially more if you delete more vills) + 45 pop in native shipments, with an incredible eco (119 vill + cowing + furtrade) to back it up. It was incredibly difficult for civs such as brit and germany to deal with.

[enjoy2play]

i think the team sup community can use this patch, looks more balanced than the EP

Kappa

[v1pus]

Don't try combine two patches together. I know this won't happen anyway but don't even waste time thinking or talking about it!


OTTO: give them another plantation card.
Russia: sounds OP that musks can build all 3? Maybe just rax n stable
Ger: yes remove uhlan from shipments.

Sioux/iro: maybe change fire pit stats? Maybe only require 16/17 vills for max benefit?

And removing team cards is like wow.....really?

Also..fix maps! Annoying as fuck when on a map when one team can reach a TP and one can't!

[dicktator_]

Don't try combine two patches together. I know this won't happen anyway but don't even waste time thinking or talking about it!


OTTO: give them another plantation card.
Russia: sounds OP that musks can build all 3? Maybe just rax n stable
Ger: yes remove uhlan from shipments.

Sioux/iro: maybe change fire pit stats? Maybe only require 16/17 vills for max benefit?

And removing team cards is like wow.....really?

Also..fix maps! Annoying as fuck when on a map when one team can reach a TP and one can't!

Sorry I just realized I worded it poorly. We're removing the team status from team cards so that they are no longer team cards, we're not getting rid of the cards altogether. Otto have already had their eco boosted through the mosque techs. For Sioux/Iro that's actually a pretty good idea, something to consider.

[fightinfrenchman]

Team cards were removed because some civs get more out of them than others. India benefits from team mills more than any other civ, Spain benefits from team cav attack a lot more than most other civs, etc. It makes an already difficult gametype to balance even more difficult.

Well yes, that's what makes certain civs work better together. If it's unbalanced you can chnage the cards to fix it but I think getting rid of all team bonuses will make team games much less interesting.

[zoom]

While I wholeheartedly support your initiative, and am not qualified to comment on a whole lot of things when it comes to Treaty, I do get the general impression that you are changing too many things that aren't necessary to change. For example, team cards being 25% (3-5pp) better isn't going to have a significant impact on balance. What would make more sense is to standardize all team cards so that they are 80% of their respective non-team cards, and even that is hardly very meaningful. Try giving it a lot of thought and find the changes that matter the most for balance and avoiding random and insignificant changes.

Furthermore, it appears to me that you aren't at all interested in trying to suggest changes for Treaty that would be reasonable to include in the EP.

[Cometk]

Edit: I'll give you guys an example as to why treaty patch and EP shouldn't be combined into one patch as I'm sure I'll have multiple people that will argue with me on this point. Goon range for ports will definitely be nerfed at some point in the EP. In the supremacy late game, goons with 20 range are too op. However, in treaty, they are perfectly balanced as is, and a nerf to their range could possibly make them weaker and a lot more beatable.

then it can be made that the imperial goon upgrade grants +2 range.

Don't try combine two patches together. I know this won't happen anyway but don't even waste time thinking or talking about it!

but why?

[Gichtenlord]

Sorry to say, but Im slowly getting a bit annoyed that u desperately want to combine both patches....
Whats the problem to just have both patches in the same launcher? Right now, the only ppl who play the esoc patch are players who are more or less dedicated to the game. >ou will never achieve to get a majority of the player base to play ep, because they just dont care and it isnt also a very casual appealing patch. I respect what you guys have done and also would have done the same if I was a sup player, but u guys have just to accept that the ep will never be big as long as you dont get microsoft attention or rather microsoft shifts its attention to aoe3 for a remake.

I want to have a really good balance for treaty, same for sup, but both have too many differences if u want to aim for the "perfect" game. Just imagine a sup tourny game which goes into super lategame and one goes for age V and suddenly all his units stats change and his homecity cards do different things(lol) and then the guy who kept staying in age 4 gets the advantage, because his units are still in the normal state

[zoom]

Who is being desperate? I literally only pointed out an observation. Judging by your response, it seems very much correct.

There is no need for anywhere near perfect balance, nor is it realistic. However, you seem to be missing the point that with too many changes lacking focus and precision, you risk putting people off.

By the way, the first thing I'd do if I made a Treaty patch is to make some more maps playable (presuming that they aren't already).

[iNcog]

I >think< that the plan is to have two separate patches. More details on that later.

[sergyou]

can brits have imperial lbs befour 40 , it is the only civ that don't get imperial "skirms" in the start armys mainly because u dont want do spend a card on it , the card could be just a buff for them.

[zoom]

That's the kind of change that would work well on EP too, by the way: Removing Yeomen prerequisite for Guard and Imperial upgrades.

[dicktator_]

Edit: I'll give you guys an example as to why treaty patch and EP shouldn't be combined into one patch as I'm sure I'll have multiple people that will argue with me on this point. Goon range for ports will definitely be nerfed at some point in the EP. In the supremacy late game, goons with 20 range are too op. However, in treaty, they are perfectly balanced as is, and a nerf to their range could possibly make them weaker and a lot more beatable.

then it can be made that the imperial goon upgrade grants +2 range.

Don't try combine two patches together. I know this won't happen anyway but don't even waste time thinking or talking about it!

but why?

Constantly having to implement workarounds for treaty every time supremacy is balanced/updated would be a pain in the ass for everyone involved. I understand why people want to combine everything into one patch but it just wouldn't be ideal.

[fightinfrenchman]

Is the tournament that will be on the patch going to be 1v1? Because I still don't see why team bonuses are being removed, that seems like a huge and drastic change.

[momuuu]

Edit: I'll give you guys an example as to why treaty patch and EP shouldn't be combined into one patch as I'm sure I'll have multiple people that will argue with me on this point. Goon range for ports will definitely be nerfed at some point in the EP. In the supremacy late game, goons with 20 range are too op. However, in treaty, they are perfectly balanced as is, and a nerf to their range could possibly make them weaker and a lot more beatable.

then it can be made that the imperial goon upgrade grants +2 range.

Don't try combine two patches together. I know this won't happen anyway but don't even waste time thinking or talking about it!

but why?

Constantly having to implement workarounds for treaty every time supremacy is balanced/updated would be a pain in the ass for everyone involved. I understand why people want to combine everything into one patch but it just wouldn't be ideal.

A patch with 10 users also isn't ideal. Ideal doesn't exist in this case.

[Gichtenlord]

Show hidden quotes

Edit: I'll give you guys an example as to why treaty patch and EP shouldn't be combined into one patch as I'm sure I'll have multiple people that will argue with me on this point. Goon range for ports will definitely be nerfed at some point in the EP. In the supremacy late game, goons with 20 range are too op. However, in treaty, they are perfectly balanced as is, and a nerf to their range could possibly make them weaker and a lot more beatable.

then it can be made that the imperial goon upgrade grants +2 range.

Don't try combine two patches together. I know this won't happen anyway but don't even waste time thinking or talking about it!

but why?

Constantly having to implement workarounds for treaty every time supremacy is balanced/updated would be a pain in the ass for everyone involved. I understand why people want to combine everything into one patch but it just wouldn't be ideal.

A patch with 10 users also isn't ideal. Ideal doesn't exist in this case.

Ep also has like 20-30 unique active users in a week. Doesnt sound that promising either

[japanesegeneral]

I dont get the artillery caps that sounds pretty much like you are not able to micro with culverins. Nerfing cuirs is a good idea in general but at least for me the splash damage belongs to their uniqueness another possibilty in my opinion would be to raise their prize. But instant cuirs regardless of the map should be nerfed for sure.